It was my reply to Gnome, who wondered whether plants can perceive or not. And it was not based on my comment on Nagel's "what it is like", which was quite unimportant, but rather on the definition of consciousness. — Alkis Piskas
I'm not familiar with "Deacon's hierarchy of higher-order theromdynamic processes". But my blog has several articles that discuss some of Deacon's ideas, as they relate to the Enformationism thesis. — Gnomon
It's the "difference that makes a difference" to an inquiring mind. — Gnomon
I don’t know what combination of the two has been suggested, but yes, I am thinking of a combination. I don’t think IIT explains consciousness by itself.In the Chalmers/IIT type of sense? — AmadeusD
Maybe more information systems within one entity give the proto-consciousness more to experience, and, therefore, greater consciousness. Like ours. — Patterner
Maybe more information systems within one entity give the proto-consciousness more to experience, and, therefore, greater consciousness. Like ours. — Patterner
What's different between what we want to reconcile? — jorndoe
I see. I know. That's why I said that it might take some time. But you don't need to do it perfectly.I tried it years ago, but my introverted mind is too ADhD for me to completely stop the flow of thought. — Gnomon
No. It isn't good for me. :smile: When you are on the verge of unconsciousness, it means you are semi-conscious. So we cannot speak of pure or full consciousness anymore. Othewise, semi-consciousness and even unconsiousness are still states of consciounsess, only that they are disordered, dysfunctional. It's like when a leg is broken: it is still a leg, only that it is dysfunctional.When I'm on the verge of unconsciousness (e.g. sleep), and not focused on something external or specific internal ideas, I suppose I'm aware of Self, without thinking, in the sense of Proprioception. Does that qualify as "awareness independent of thinking" for you? — Gnomon
It isn't! :grin:How is it different from a Vegetative State? :smile: — Gnomon
Brain scans reveal which 'vegetative' patients are alert, trapped in bodiesA vegetative state is absence of responsiveness and awareness due to overwhelming dysfunction of the cerebral hemispheres, . . . — Gnomon
Right. Kinesthesia is a good example. No conception.Proprioception, or kinesthesia, is the sense that lets us perceive the location, movement, and action of parts of the body.
Note --- Perception without Conception? — Gnomon
I can't tell. If I were a Fly Trap I would. :grin:Is a sentient-but-brainless Fly Trap aware of its unconventional eating habits? — Gnomon
Well, you did use Nagel line. In fact, your whole message was based on it. Not only that, you referred me to @RogueAI 's question "Do you think there is something it's like to be a Venus Fly Trap?" on the same subject. As if my whole message was based on or built around it.We're talking about sentience though, which is why i directly referenced sentience and it's constitution. I need not have used the Nagel line, it's just a great encapsulation. — AmadeusD
OK, but I also said that the term was not used in the meaning is used meaning today. Which is what we are trying to define.You defined well from where consciousness comes from — ssu
Certainly. Describing the mechanics of this kind of concepts is very hard and in some cases, like with consciousness, even impossible.I think we have a problem just with defining how knowledge works — ssu
Interesting example-metaphor, but where are you referring to exactly? :smile:which in my view comes to the OP's point of no matter how much drive around the moon, you won't get to Earth. — ssu
I guess so. Interesting thought too. Causes can be often hidden or hard to trace or multiple.I think we have still a lot to understand in the basics as our understanding of things like causality is still quite mechanistic. — ssu
It's true. A "black box": I liked that too. I think you are very successful with your similes! :up:This comes in a lot of examples where our models end up with a 'black box' where the issue consciousness happens. — ssu
Ha! I remember my blog posts in general, but give me a break, I'm old and I don't have a photographic memory. So, if I need to recall some technical details, I have to search through over a hundred articles over seven years. For example, I didn't recognize your reference to "Deacon's hierarchy of higher-order theromdynamic processes" as something I had blogged about. If you want to know more about The Power of Absence, you can read Deacon's book, or ask me a specific question, and I'll look back at my blogs to see what my opinion was several years ago. :smile:I'm perplexed by your apparent ignorance of what's posted on your own blog. — ucarr
Primarily because it’s a half-baked idea that I haven’t figured out how to put into words. :DSo, i'm not entirely sure I'm grasping what you mean — AmadeusD
Yes, i would think if there are multiple systems interacting that would constitute a network, right? So that's just a more complex system which, to my mind, comports with the theory in the sense it would give rise to higher levels of consciousness. — AmadeusD
I don’t know if I can separate my responses to you two. I think I’m addressing both. (And my apologies. I seem to have gone to some length.)Does consciousness have a sliding scale of lesser and greater? I think it's like an on/off switch. One is either conscious or not, although the things one is conscious of can be said to be "richer" or "fuller" than the things a bat is conscious of, although that might be wrong too. Who's to say the conscious experience of a vft catching a fly is less than my conscious experience of seeing a sunrise? — RogueAI
A mind is a physical system that converts sensations into action. A mind takes in a set of inputs from its environment and transforms them into a set of environment-impacting outputs that, crucially, influence the welfare of its body. This process of changing inputs into outputs—of changing sensation into useful behavior—is thinking, the defining activity of a mind.
Accordingly, every mind requires a minimum of two thinking elements:
•A sensor that responds to its environment
•A doer that acts upon its environment
Some familiar examples of sensors that are part of your own mind include the photon-sensing rods and cones in your retina, the vibration-sensing hair cells in your ears, and the sourness-sensing taste buds on your tongue. A sensor interacts with a doer, which does something. A doer performs some action that impinges upon the world and thereby influences the body’s health and well-being. Common examples of doers include the twitchy muscle cells in your finger, the sweat-producing apocrine cells in your sweat glands, and the liquid-leaking serous cells in your tear ducts.
A mind, then, is defined by what it does rather than what it is. "Mind” is an action noun, like “tango,” “communication,” or “game.” A mind responds. A mind transforms. A mind acts. A mind adapts to the ceaseless assault of aimless chaos.
Well, you did use Nagel line. In fact, your whole message was based on it. Not only that, you referred me to RogueAI 's question "Do you think there is something it's like to be a Venus Fly Trap?" on the same subject — Alkis Piskas
Panpsychism*1 & Panexperientialism typically postulate that Conscious Experience is a fundamental element of nature, implying that it existed prior to the emergence of Brains. It also suggests that the Cosmos as a whole may be conscious of its own internal events. Such notions are similar to my own thesis of Enformationism, except that I replace anthro-morphic (personal) "Consciousness" with natural (abstract) "Information". As indicated in my Evolution of Consciousness tabulation in a previous post, I have come to think of Generic Information (causal Energy + limiting Law) as the fundamental force in nature. Also, I make no assumptions about a god-like sentient universe, which is way above my pay-grade.Oherwise, this is a good example too. In fact, not only plants are brainless: a lot of creatures or, better, organisms are too. Which can make one ask --but not me-- why does science negclet this fact and stiil tries to maintain that consciousness --an basic feature of all life-- is created and resides in the brain? Well, one answer is because they think of "consciousness" and "awareness" as something different than what they actually are. Another one is because they can't accept their ignorance on the subject. Still another one is that can't accept "experience" as a hard evidence. Still another ... — Alkis Piskas
That's much better! Why didn't you talk about that in the first place?Not quite. I delineated sentience from consciousness (or that was my intention). Because your definition to my mind (and maybe RogueAIs) doesn’t rise to sentience and therefore there would be nothing it’s like to be a vft on that account. I can’t see the problem. The Nagel line was a useful way of outlining why I see a disconnect between conscious experience viz. sentience and consciousness per se. It was about what you’d said. — AmadeusD
Ha! I remember my blog posts in general, but give me a break, I'm old and I don't have a photographic memory. — Gnomon
I didn't recognize your reference to "Deacon's hierarchy of higher-order theromdynamic processes" as something I had blogged about. — Gnomon
What Is The Power of Absence?
Enformation (see EnFormAction), in its physical form, is the workhorse of the universe. It begins as the law of Thermo-dynamics, which is the universal tendency for energy to flow downhill from high to low or from hot to cold. Morphodynamics adds constraints on the free flow of energy. Teleodynamics adds side-channels to perform self-directed & end-directed Work. Zoe-dynamics (Life) adds work to reproduce the memory (DNA), structure & constraints of the organism into seeds of potential for future living organisms. — Post 68
I plead the fifth! What if I did? Do you have philosophical issues with these fanastic & unproven ideas? For the record, I am not now, nor ever have been a member of any science-subversive New Age conspiracy. :joke:What Is The Power of Absence?
Enformation (see EnFormAction), in its physical form, is the workhorse of the universe. It begins as the law of Thermo-dynamics, which is the universal tendency for energy to flow downhill from high to low or from hot to cold. Morphodynamics adds constraints on the free flow of energy. Teleodynamics adds side-channels to perform self-directed & end-directed Work. Zoe-dynamics (Life) adds work to reproduce the memory (DNA), structure & constraints of the organism into seeds of potential for future living organisms. — Post 68
Did you write the section of Post 68 quoted above? — ucarr
That we are looking for a certain mechanism in how knowledge works. Just like driving on the surface of a planet can get you anywhere on the surface of the planet, but not to another planet. Earlier it lead people to think in a mechanically deterministic World, the Clockwork Universe and people simply to think that if we know all the laws of nature and all the revelant information, then we can extrapolate everything and make a correct model of the future. Basic idea of the deterministic World where we can like Leibniz said, simply calculate everything!Interesting example-metaphor, but where are you referring to exactly? :smile: — Alkis Piskas
I plead the fifth! What if I did? Do you have philosophical issues with these fanastic & unproven ideas? For the record, I am not now, nor ever have been a member of any science-subversive New Age conspiracy. — Gnomon
Why, is there an "Unconscious Experience"? :smile:Panpsychism*1 & Panexperientialism typically postulate that Conscious Experience is a fundamental element of nature, implying that it existed prior to the emergence of Brains. — Gnomon
Besides that I don't know what does P conceive the terms "conscious" and "consiousness", things tlike "it may be conscious" are not good for me. Let's go on ...It also suggests that the Cosmos as a whole may be conscious of its own internal events. — Gnomon
Unfortunately, I'm not knowledgable on the subject. But I'm willing to know about your thesis.Such notions are similar to my own thesis of Enformationism — Gnomon
Why, are there "conscious machines"?His [Shannon's] definition works well for non-conscious machines, but not for humans with ideas & feelings of their own. — Gnomon
Well, I undestood that in the first place. But what that has to do with the current topic, "Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?" Do you mean that the problem is about or has to do with going in circles or some kind of a vicious circle? Or maybe that scientists look at the subject of consciousness only from its surface, without being able to look "inside" it? The second one alludes also to the "black box" you are talking about.[Re Where does the simile "no matter how much drive around the moon, you won't get to Earth" refer to] That we are looking for a certain mechanism in how knowledge works. Just like driving on the surface of a planet can get you anywhere on the surface of the planet, but not to another planet. — ssu
Nicely put.Earlier it lead people to think in a mechanically deterministic World, the Clockwork Universe and people simply to think that if we know all the laws of nature and all the revelant information, then we can extrapolate everything and make a correct model of the future. — ssu
There's an arguable point here: that "we are part of the universe". And it is were "dualists" and "non-dualists" separate themselves. (The quotation marks on the latter two terms mean that I use them very rarely and loosely, only for description purposes.)The problem is of course that we are part of that universe and so is our model, that also has an impact on reality. Thus we cannot make an objective, computable model of that reality. — ssu
I agree.The problem that we use the models that we have, which obviously aren't so good. After all, if they would be, there wouldn't be any discussion even in this Forum. — ssu
:smile: No, it's certainly not textbook material. :smile:If there would be a clear answer, someone would just remind the questioner to read 1.0 logic or math or even a book about philosophy! — ssu
Certainly. Tell that toI think the reason is that our logic that we use assumes clear, yet consciousness (just as learning) is all about subjectivity.The subjective and subjectivity cannot be put into a objective, computational model or algorithm. — ssu
:up:That's why we end using the metaphor of a 'black box'. — ssu
I have never heard of anyone why thinks a stone can have a mind. Here are a few quotes that give a more accurate idea of panpaychism.Simply, I cannot imagine how a stone can have a "mind". — Alkis Piskas
Panpsychism is sometimes caricatured as the view that fundamental physical entities such as electrons have thoughts; that electrons are, say, driven by existential angst. However, panpsychism as defended in contemporary philosophy is the view that consciousness is fundamental and ubiquitous, where to be conscious is simply to have subjective experience of some kind. This doesn’t necessarily imply anything as sophisticated as thoughts.
Of course in human beings consciousness is a sophisticated thing, involving subtle and complex emotions, thoughts and sensory experiences. But there seems nothing incoherent with the idea that consciousness might exist in some extremely basic forms. We have good reason to think that the conscious experiences a horse has are much less complex than those of a human being, and the experiences a chicken has are much less complex than those of a horse. As organisms become simpler perhaps at some point the light of consciousness suddenly switches off, with simpler organisms having no subjective experience at all. But it is also possible that the light of consciousness never switches off entirely, but rather fades as organic complexity reduces, through flies, insects, plants, amoeba, and bacteria. For the panpsychist, this fading-whilst-never-turning-off continuum further extends into inorganic matter, with fundamental physical entities – perhaps electrons and quarks – possessing extremely rudimentary forms of consciousness, which reflects their extremely simple nature.
Even a photon has some degree of consciousness. The idea is not that photons are intelligent, or thinking. You know, it’s not that a photon is wracked with angst because it’s thinking, "Aaa! I'm always buzzing around near the speed of light! I never get to slow down and smell the roses!" No, not like that. But the thought is maybe the photons might have some element of raw, subjective feeling. Some primitive precursor to consciousness.
Minds of atoms may conceivably be, for example, a stream of instantaneous memory-less moments of experience.
I was thinking of the problem is the most simple way in mathematics. Usually our models are mathematical, so the simple model would be y=f(x) where the function, the algorithm, here is the thing that explains the change, right?There's an arguable point here: that "we are part of the universe". And it is were "dualists" and "non-dualists" separate themselves. (The quotation marks on the latter two terms mean that I use them very rarely and loosely, only for description purposes.) — Alkis Piskas
Or even economists! Because even in economics this has reared it's ugly head. The problem is that when the aggregate of economics decisions of all players in the economy make is affected by the model itself that tries to explain there actions, where then is objectivity? You cannot have an economic model that says that people behaved this way because they believed this model itself. Why? Because...Certainly. Tell that to scientists, esp. the neurophysicists and the neurobiologists. — Alkis Piskas
Other than reading his book, Incomplete Nature, I have not gotten deeply into Deacon's scientific & philosophical system. So, anything I might say may be based on a superficial understanding. My main takeaway from the book was the notion that the "absent" feature of nature is Potential : that which is not yet, but has the power to be. A secondary concept is that of "constraints", which I interpret as natural Laws --- begging the question of a Lawmaker.I just thought you might be able to elaborate enformationism within the context of Deacon's three-stage hierarchy. From Deacon I understand, in the simple manner of a layperson, that both information and sentience are situated within the hierarchy as emergent-yet-dependent properties. — ucarr
What about a ball? Or a pencil? :smile:I have never heard of anyone why thinks a stone can have a mind. — Patterner
No one speaks about thoughts. Even in humans, this is another process, outside consciousness. If we speak about consciousness in objects, we have to ask simple: "Do objects perceive?" If we can prove they do, then all its fine and I will personally support Panpsychism. :simle:panpsychism as defended in contemporary philosophy is the view that consciousness is fundamental and ubiquitous, where to be conscious is simply to have subjective experience of some kind. This doesn’t necessarily imply anything as sophisticated as thoughts. — Patterner
Again, we don't speak about the quality or level of consciousness between humans and objects or even the differences between human and object consciousness. That would have a meaning if first, as I said above, it is proven that objects percieve, i.e. can be conscious, have any consiousness at all.Of course in human beings consciousness is a sophisticated thing — Patterner
I know he does. I also believe that he is responsible for the widely spread HPofC, which I have called eadlier in the discussion of this topic as an "illusionary" problem, since it doesn't really exist in terms of its description.In this Ted Talk, Chalmers says: Even a photon has some degree of consciousness. — Patterner
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.