Listen Grand Sultan of "the Philosophy Forum" I don't accept warnings or threats so I won't contribute to your biological rewarding mechanism (endorphins) activated by the act of "giving orders" and "make people obey you".
If you don't like words describing behavior then you have 3 choices:
A. move to North Korea. ( I hear your tactics have a huge success there.)
B. Don't read my posts
C. Ban my account

I prefer C so I get to keep my email inbox clear(never mind I will block it). After all I was off for most of the time during my two years membership.

As I already wrote yesterday I am sick and bored of all magical thinkers and their scientific ignorance, their inability to distinquish Philosophy from pseudo philosophy, their constant attempts to avoid all standards of evaluation and their dishonesty. If I recall your arguments correctly you were also one of them...so no wonder why you find Foolso4 knowledgeable and articulate but my descriptions "attacks and ad hominems".

EDIT: Part of the reason I created this thread is to give you a place to let off some steam without being off-topic, so you were less likely to be banned. — bert1

-I thought your goals were to communicate your scientific ignorance and the promotion our death denying ideology. Who knew you cared about me....lol


Sir I appreciate your understanding, your education and admire your patience.

Enjoy your lives and educate yourselves.

btw magical thinking is a real condition.
https://aeon.co/essays/magical-thinking-still-haunts-all-our-thoughts

Over and out.

Attacks and insults? Mr Foolos04 is dishonest and he has been like that from his first reply. My labels describe his behavior and intentions that he has displayed again and again, so they are not ad hominems. He doesn't respect scientific knowledge and all his arguments are based on his personal incredulity(which is a fallacy).
He cherry picks and uses scientific statements out of context while he ignores mainstream science all together.
So I am free to make any argument and I am free to call out dishonest interlocutors. I would appreciate if you inform your criticism about me sir.

Once again, there is no consensus on the definition of the terms. Without such consensus the claim remains ambiguous. — Fooloso4

Again, when a definition is based on the description of the phenomenon...there is consensus.
i.e. "Consciousness is an arousal and awareness of environment and self, which is achieved through action of the ascending reticular activating system"
this is a description based on what we can objectively verify as the phenomenon to be conscious.

when you make claims about these undefined terms. Giving a definition does not settle anything. — Fooloso4

-I don't know under which rock you have been living but in science we have straight forward descriptions for any phenomenon. We may not be able to provide a theory or a single causal mechanism but that doesn't mean we don't agree with what we study and observe.

Despite a revival in the scientific study of consciousness over recent decades, the only real consensus so far is that there is still no consensus.

He is far more specific of the details that enable the phenomenon. He and anyone agree on which phenomenon they are talking about.
Don't try to bring science in the woo woo land of your definitions sir.

Ok all of you are trying to hide behind vague and undefined terms because they serve your magical ideologies. Sorry I don't have time for this and I am bored.

I constantly post the link of the definition I use so you have no excuse.You are wasting my time Fooloso4.

Claiming the one conceptually ambiguous concept is the author of another conceptually ambiguous concept gets us nowhere, and fast. — Fooloso4

I have posted many times a specific scientific definition of the term. Try to keep up or don't waste my time.

It depends. Words do not have intrinsic meanings , they have common usages. If someone doesn't use any of the common meanings or his intention is an argument of Ambiguity or we already have a word with that same meaning then the irritating pedant is the guy who doesn't respect the basic rules of communication.

If people enjoy talking pass each other, then not using definitions is the way to go.

Why stop at a transition? — Gnomon

Scientific frameworks describe specific phenomena. We stop because claims about "energy" make no sense.
Energy is NOT an agent. Your understanding of what energy is..is very weird. Energy is nothing more than an abstract concept describing the capacity to do work.
It doesn't go anywhere "after brain states are energized". Metabolic molecules provide the energy to our brain to function.

What "breathes fire" into the brain? — Gnomon

Nothing breathes fire, your brain "burns" those molecules allowing all its mechanisms to produce our mental states.
Hypoglycemia (fuel deprivation of the brain) can produce permanent brain damage, even death.

I do explicitly say in my post the self can be distinguished from consciousness. — bert1

I don't know what that means. Our consciousness is the author of our self.
So why are you using our gaps in our knowledge as an excuse to argue in favor of an alternative nature of our conscious states.?

may be onto something in his Energy is Matter is Mind extrapolation. — Gnomon

Einstein's framework describes a relation in a way smaller scale.......
You can say that metabolic molecules produce energy by which brain systems are able to produce mental states...and this is where we need to stop.

Great! It goes on to say that most neuroscientists think the two are indivisible, but I'm not sure if they mean conceptually indivisible or physically indivisible. — bert1

It means that people with existential anxieties will always find excuses to embrace a comforting idea able to separate their existence from their a biological body with an expiration date.

You do understand that Conscious States are a biological phenomenon?
Can you use relativity and QM to describe Metabolism or Mitosis?

There is no need of guessing in Chalmers's question on the hard problem
1.Why are physical processes ever accompanied by experience?
-the term ever reveals the nature of this why question.

2. why does a given physical process generate the specific experience it does
-This is just silly question. Why a previously excited electron "generates" a specific new particle? Specific experiences arise with specific stimuli...thats all. Brains interpret stimuli differently

3.why an experience of red rather than green, for example?
-Because if all optical stimuli were green our ancestors wouldn't be able to distinguish fresh tender leaves from the rest of the foliage. Because different light waves carry different energy. Different energies are interpreted differently by our brains.

'Why' questions aren't always about teleology. — bert1

"aren't always" is the key word. Obviously I am addressing those which are injecting intention or purpose in Nature.

We're not going to be able to have a conversation if every time I ask "why such and such" you say I'm looking for a teleological (or even just evolutionary) explanation. — bert1

The problem is NOT just with your questions but your previous answers which allow me to guess your intention behind those questions.
I admit maybe I am wrong, but after 40 years of discussions I might say may heuristics are pretty accurate. That of course doesn't mean I am not willing to get your clarifications. I am all for it.

. What I'm asking for in this thread is an explanation in terms of physical processes. Similar to the question I'd ask of a mechanic with my car "Why won't my car start?" — bert1

-Ok but you need to understand the fallacy of your question.....when you hold responsible of Science not being able to experience YOUR experience thus concluding it has nothing to say about the processes responsible for the phenomenon.
ITs like accusing a tuna sandwich for poor swimming skills...that's not what tuna sandwiches are for.!

I'm looking for an answer in terms of the structure and function of the car. It's odd that you impute this intention to seek teleological answers to Chalmers as well. — bert1

Chalmer's questions have the same problem with your statement.
Once again lets analyze his questions one by one. Please help me here.

1.Why are physical processes ever accompanied by experience?
Can you explain the use of the term "ever"?

2. why does a given physical process generate the specific experience it does
Can you translate it to a how question?


3.why an experience of red rather than green, for example?
What does he even means....does he want all red experiences to show up like green. And the Greens. Where is his how questions exactly?

Please do your best.

But you should be interested in what those who you rely on actually say. Or not. That's up to you. The problem is your repeated criticisms of others based on your misunderstanding of the sources you rely on. — Fooloso4

Criticism:
9. Detachment from Intellectual Engines of Modern Civilization

" My grandma, the skateboard!".
An other criticism particularly relevant to this Philosophical platform are all those "ifisms" people use to add some kind of value in an irrational speculation.
"if" this is true and if that is true then this magical conclusion must be true.
I tend to call these arguments " My grandma, the skateboard".
If my grandmother had wheels she would be a skateboard.
The problem with all these statements is that they tend to be useless tautologies. Its more than obvious that if all those things were true we will be forced to accept that specific conclusion...but since most of those conditions are unfalsifiable or against the current established knowledge, they don't really offer anything to the discussion or make us wiser.

I am not interested in tap dances....have a great evening sir.

Thanks for your advice, but I prefer to think rather than follow the misguided idea that there are steps that are not even steps. — Fooloso4

Yeap treat systematic knowledge as ordinary opinions is your thing, you made it clear.

Dismissing what you have not read or have not understood as "Pseudo Philosophy" does harm to your credibility. — Fooloso4

That's not the criterion for pseudo philosophy....
I quote form the same source:
"What is pseudo-philosophy?
Philosophy that relies on fallacious arguments to a conclusion, and/or relies on factually false or undemonstrated premises. And isn't corrected when discovered."

By the way, it is Paul Hoyningen-Huene not Paul Hoyningen. — Fooloso4

Seriously.....you felt the need to add that? lol oh boy...sad.
(maybe you can also tell Paul to change the name of his youtube channel ...because it only goes by Paul Hoyningen). Again sad.

His use of the term science is not limited to physics as you have it in your chart, bur rather it applies to each topic in the chart and much more. — Fooloso4

So you don't know the difference between Physics and Aristotle's Physika ...proud to be ignorant I guess.
Cheers

I would vote: "watch less SciFI" lol.
I don't know and I don't think consciousness is the main criterion on who deserves rights or not.
We provide special rights to fetuses which do not have the "hardware" to be conscious or to people in vegetative states.
I my self respect anything with or without conscious states and allow the right of existence..... from the humble grass-blades to my...... retro collection of micro computers.(something useless for most people on earth).
Maybe your example would be more useful by questioning the ability of that character to be conscious . And by conscious we are asking whether he can experience the world through mental states that include finding meaning in biological feelings and concepts.
Do you agree? if yes my answer would be no.
My additional remark is that there can be different types of conscious states which do not include reflecting to how we feel about our existence or what is moral.
The core in our consciousness is our biological emotions that we reason in to feelings and concerns about our existence, relationships, morality, position in society etc. We can introduce an algorithm in a machine to care for his existence but I am not sure an algorithm can produce similar feelings to those produced by stress hormone or endorphins.
An extensive simulation of the workings in a biological mechanism might do the trick someday. In any case we will need to inspect the hardware before arriving to a conclusion. Behavior alone is not enough for that judgment.

Yes these steps include "visiting" specific philosophical branches and science. Again you can close your ears and shout all you want. This is the method you need to follow, if of course you are not a fan of Pseudo Philosophy.
You are appreciating the wrong Man. Appreciate those who systematized the field.

check my thumbnail, you will find all the steps of the Philosophical method ...

Perhaps we all know how subjective conscious states feel because we all have them. If you had no subjective conscious states you would not know how they feel no matter how much brain research you undertook (assuming that you would be able to carry out brain research without having subjective conscious states yourself). — Janus

Well you identified the problem in that "if". We have no way to carry any type or research without the ability to connect memory, reasoning, judgment, intelligence, heuristics etca which all come together during a conscious state.
We know that we all have conscious states because we can observe it in out interactions, our behavior, verify that we all have the same hardware necessary for the emergence of those states and we know that those states have a subjective feeling because not all biological setups and previous experiences are the same. i.e.One may enjoy spicy foods while a super taster hates the same experience.
We not only share same or similar experiences with other people, we even have Mirror Neurons that replicate the whole brain function as if we were the individual who we observe.

I don't find made up ifs to be useful philosophy, especially when the phenomenon in questions is way to complicated and demands so many different systems to emerge.
Sensory systems, dozens of Mind properties that enable a brain to produce conscious content , storage mediums etc.
The term consciousness or our feeling to be conscious may appear something that can be overlooked by bystanders, but when realizing the "hardware" needed for the conditions to be right for such a state to emerge, its pretty difficult to be hidden from our systematic methods of investigation. And all that is without even addressing conscious behavior....which is more than obvious.

:up:

I disagree on what I am confusing. — Benj96

I didn't accuse you of being confused. I said you are confusing different properties of mind with consciousness.

For me there is no confusion; the brain is basically the product of evolutionarily compounded/refined intelligence.. — Benj96

That's an other topic. Intelligence is a property of the brain,but our ability to be consciously aware of our experiences isn't affected when our intelligence is impaired The same is true for memory, symbolic language, reason, pattern/face recognition, heuristics in general etc.
i.e. guys can be conscious while being unable to remember or recognize their wives!

Consciousness involves this ability to be intelligent but in the context that it refers to how it is applied to the beholder/self. — Benj96

first definition I found: "Intelligence is the ability to learn from experience and to adapt to, shape, and select environments."
Brain injury can remove the above ability but still the individual can be conscious of his experiences.
I don't say that intelligence doesn't elevate the quality of our conscious experiences, but you need to understand that intelligence demands good use of memory/past experience, reasoning, use of symbolic language etc all properties that can be lost due to brain pathology or injury while the individual can s till enjoy conscious experiences. Haven't you ever interacted with a victim of brain trauma?????

In simple terms then consciousness is intelligences awareness of self - it's specific appearance, definition and this it's limitations. Ie humanness. Human consciousness is the awareness of what it feels like to be Human (limited in ability but unlimited in imagination/creativity). — Benj96

You understand something limited and specific by that term.
You are addressing a specific content of consciousness not the general mental ability to be conscious aware of different experiences..every single moment. ( whether it is our human nature, an itch on the butt, a piece of cake in the freezer, economic difficulties, the loss of a loved one etc etc).

Trying to introduce the supernatural in a discussion about a property of mind is a pseudo philosophical practice.
Whether farting pixies are the ultimate nature of reality , consciousness or not it doesn't make a difference.
Science has figured that out ages ago. What goes on beyond our cataleptic impressions is irrelevant.
This is the beauty of Methodological Naturalism. Believe, assume and speculate whatever you want.....but when it comes to the act of producing knowledge or understanding our reality through wise claims the only way available to us is to test our hypotheses against the reality that is available to us.
The underlying reality can not change the formulations that describe and predict things, this is why we don't use supernatural explanations in our frameworks. They are indescribable,unfalsifiable and they don't have prediction power.

And this is something that is still poorly understood and subject to substantial revision. — Fooloso4

You need to educate your self on what we know, how we know it and how our Technical applications verify our current knowledge.

I don't need to go to a happy place, you need to play with the rules and respect specialized knowledge.
IF you are not interested in basing your "philosophy" on credible knowledge then I am not interested in listening to Pseudo philosophical ideologies.

You are talking to a guy who had a motorcycle accident (August 2010)where he lost his ability to be consciously aware of his experiences for 2 weeks, with interruptions for more than six months while few of my abilities were never regained. This is the reason why I got interested in this field of study and why I can easily detect vague bovine manure when I read it. (i.e."(And this is something that is still poorly understood and subject to substantial revision)".
You have a poor understanding of what we understand about the brain and you try to make it appear as it is universal.

There are many things we don't know about the mind, but you don't get to dismiss what we DO know.

If the ultimate nature of matter is mental, doesn't that blow neuroscience out of the water? Isn't the whole point of neuroscience based on the assumption that mind and consciousness are produced by a physical brain? — RogueAI

In respect of your time and effort to communicate with me I will include the answer to your previous question in the end of my answer to your last set of questions.

Now I don't know what the statement "matter is mental" means and even if the the ultimate nature of the fundamental elements of Matter were (allow me this absurdism) farts by cosmic pixies that changes nothing on how we execute our Systematic observations. After all, Empirical Regularities and External Limitations is what we observe in Matter something that is not true for Mental states as we know them.
What goes on beyond our Cataleptic Impressions can never affect our Descriptions and Law Like Generalizations.
There is a good reason why science is based on the auxiliary principles of Methodological Naturalism allowing us to avoid all ifs and maybes of the Supernatural narrative.
We do our best with what we can work with and able to verifywith our high standards of evaluation and leave the burden for the Supernatural to the materialists and supernaturalists!

previous questions.

I will grant you that there is a prima facia case that a simulated or mechanical brain should be conscious.. — RogueAI

I didn't really say that. I only drew lines between their similarities and differences.
Mechanical brains lack specific properties to ever achieve biological consciousness (intuition, feelings, biases, expectations, intention, meaning, urges etc). They lack a fluctuating limbic system and past experiences shaping their heuristics . So a "mechanical" experience can never have a subjective quality...or better if we produce the same exactly machinery with the same software the "experience" will be objective for every machine.
So maybe we are in agreement on that.

My question is: how would we scientifically go from there? How would science "nail down" the question of whether X is conscious or not? What tests could we perform, that would give us conclusive proof of consciousness (or lack thereof) — RogueAI

I find this question really good and challenging!!!!
The steps are the following
1. identify a sensory system that feeds data of which the system can be conscious of.
2.Test the ability of the system to produce an array of important mind properties
3. Verify a mechanism that brings online sensory input and relevant mind properties.(conscious state)
4. evaluate the outcome (in behavior and actions)

This is a really good point. I hadn't thought of it in this way before. — T Clark

I think its a good way to demarcate ontological claims that enjoy scientific support . Of course conflicting paradigms aren't necessary wrong.

That others may share your opinions does not mean that they are more than opinions. Neuroscience is in its infancy. Our understanding of what matter is and what it is capable of continues to develop. — Fooloso4

This is your argument to dismiss Systematic Knowledge of specialized authorities????( 35 years of advances in rapid pace).
The ultimate nature of matter is irrelevant to the field of Neuroscience.
Different properties of Mind have distinct causal mechanisms in our brain. THis is WHY when one has damage in the area of Memory or of Face recognition or Reasoning etc etc we can verify his ability to be consciously aware of his experiences but unable to remember , recognize , reason etc etc.

Its always good to listen to TRUE authority figures, they are the reason why you can use your devise to post your ignorant critique against their Systematic Knowledge (yes your pc/phone and internet connection works even if we don't know the ultimate nature of matter).

Since you don't accept any type of Epistemology we will end our conversation here.
I never do philosophy on the vague foundations of "all opinions are equal".

Try taking some Academic Moocs on Neuroscience and Cognitive Science and revisit your critique about "my opinions".
Start with Future Learn and "What is a Mind" (by Mark Solms).

But I don't see a principle by which sensory inputs and processing units couldn't be created by people, in a non-biological creation. Again, I don't think it's plausible, but I don't think it's impossible either. — Manuel

Sure this is why I only excluded structures without "similar" characteristics. Replicating a brain only proves that brains are necessary and sufficient.

As for panpsychism, the reason I don't think some formulation can't be ruled out, is that there is obviously something about matter that when so-combined, leads to experience. Granted, it's in brains that such combinations arise. But even so, if matter did not contain the possibility of consciousness as a potential, then experience couldn't happen even in brains. — Manuel

-That is not panpsychism though. Matter is capable for many things under specific conditions but we don't go around talking about i.e. Pancombustism, or Panflatulencism or Panphotosynthesism.
Actually this is a great point you made, because this is the WHOLE argument of our current Scientific Paradigm.
Science's paradigm states that we don't observe Advance Properties "floating" free in Nature. We constantly verify the need of Physical Structures with functions for such properties to emerge.
This is how we demarcate Supernatural from scientific claims, When Kastrup or Sheldrake or Hoffmann etc project high level features in nature independent of physical low level mechanisms we quickly understand that we deal with a pseudo scientific story.

I think consciousness is awareness/intelligence from the point of view of ones individual identity — Benj96

You are confusing different properties of mind with Consciousness. Consciousness, according to Neuroscience is the third basic mental property.
Consciousness is the brain's ability to connect stimuli with the rest of our mind properties allowing the emergence of content in our experiences.

Ι wasn't accusing you of anything. I just pointed out how a word on the wrong hands can lead a conversation to .....quantum mechanics.
Now ,we can rule out panpsychism or consciousness in structures without similar biological gear, because such structures lack sensory systems(no input) or a central processing units capable to process drives and urges (which are non existent),emotions, capability to store info (memory), to recognize pattern, to use symbolic language, to reason, etc etc.
The term Consciousness may be one word, but the things needed for such a state to emerge are so many and advanced that only complex systems (like brains) have the hardware and function to achieve it.

And subjective experience is necessary for that? How do organisms without nervous systems survive? Are all living nervous systems conscious? — Marchesk

I am starting to think that subjective experience means something different to you!.
First of all when we talk about conscious states the term "subjective" is redundant. All conscious states have a subjective quality. We have different biological setups so our sensory system will register the same stimulous with small differences. Then our past experiences differ. So i.e. one might enjoy spicy food (because of a small number of taste buds on his tongue and a happy memory from his first date with a girl) but others might suffer (super tasters).
We are left with the word "experience" and I will add the important term Conscious Experience.
So your question sound sound like"why being able to consciously aware of an experience is necessary for survival." Because it allows you to acknowledge your feelings(the condition you want to avoid and identify your goal)make judgments, take decisions based on previous knowledge, take in to account the present data and inform your actions."
-"How do organisms without nervous systems survive?"
-Mutations that turn out to be beneficial (thorns, toxicity),Mechanical and Chemical processes that allow plants to "react" to external stimuli.(sun light,shade, strong wind,) successful type of reproduction (pollination, vibrant colors,germination etc).

-"Are all living nervous systems conscious"
-No , if you mean that all nervous systems are able to produce mental conscious experiences. A central nervous system is needed(Brain).

I find this kind if thinking really insulting. Neuroscientists are clever enough people, their intellectual capabilities should not be in question. — Isaac

I thought I was the only one who finds his statements condescending and insulting....good to know.

Well if nature is fundamentally physical — Marchesk

If? what do you mean if? the physical reality is all that we can observe and work on. Why poisoning the well?

-"then subjective experience doesn't conceptually fit."
Well It depends on what you mean by that term, but why? Is it in conflict with your opinion on what all should look in a physical world? My subjective experience of Nature doesn't find any "fitting" issues.
Brains have the ability to gather stimuli and use feelings, memory, symbolic language, reason, etc to introduce content in an experience.
Small differences in the input of a stimulus (our biological setup) , in memories , on our understanding of symbolism make these experiences subjective.
There is nothing mysterious or magic there.

Why should we accept that definition for machine consciousness? It's not the same thing as qualia. You just created an arbitrary definition and assigned it to 'consciousness'. It doesn't answer the question of whether a machine can have qualia. — Marchesk

This is why I opened my post by saying "it depends on the definition".
I distinguished the two types of "consciousness"based on the underlying driving mechanisms.
What you label "experience" is similar to what the machine is working on that exact moment (sensory input and processing). The difference is that your experience is "polluted" and evaluated by your feelings, custom nature of your biological apparatus and what it means to you. The machines don't have feelings and they are not guided by meaning. They have an algorithm to execute in relation to their defined goals.

We don't even really know what 'matter' is. Could be quantum fields or vibrating 10 dimensional strings. Or maybe everything in physics is a kind of analogy, limited by human cognition and technology. Maybe we can't get at what reality fundamentally is. — Marchesk

Ok you jump from the underlying ontology of matter...to reality. From a intrinsic feature of the cosmos to an abstract concept . Reality is an observer dependent term which is defined by our ability to interact and verify with things in existence. A fundamental nature of reality will never change our descriptions and narratives on how reality interacts with us and vice versa.
This is the problem when general terms are used instead of specific.

think there are historical reasons that lead us to conclude that consciousness is a property of matter. But it also depends on what you think matter (or more broadly "the physical) encompasses. — Manuel

Instead of using the term Brain (material structure) Manuel used the word "matter"....and the conversation rolled down the hill reaching "quantum levels" rendering the conversation irrelevant to the biological property of consciousness.

You make my point for me. — Wayfarer

No I am not. You are doing Chronicling (that dude said that once). I reflect on the available knowledge and come to conclusions which happen to be in agreement with the field. I don't hide behind arguments from ignorance (there is no scientific account for the subjective unity of experience).
Even if we didn't have a "scientific account" and it isn't answered by what we already know on how conscious states emerge.....what makes you think that we won't have one in the future, IF and only if it is a actual thing.