isn't particularly mature. — AmadeusD

Quit with the judgments. It really makes me not want to discuss with you

But I'd like to. So, address the issue

I appreciate the charity!

While I understand how you have read this, that is not a judgement about you. Maturity is not solely a personal attribute. I think the theory is immature - as in, hasn't been fully thought through/doesn't take all relevant issues into account. It is not a comment on you. I imagine this happens often? Please just ask me to clarify whenever you get that impression. I can almost guarantee it's not a personal judgement.

I have addressed the issue there, in this light. The attitude is an immature one that I think needs a bit more consideration. Science-derived information can be murky, messy, contradictory etc.. etc.. "settled science" is quite rare. But we need to know things all the time - and we certianly don't defer to labs and journals for most knowledge we have day-to-day.

the theory is immature — AmadeusD

of accepting scientific knowledge as valid?

Does that mean you don’t see the distinction between things that are living and things that are not as an important one? — T Clark

No, it doesn't mean that. I see distinction between all kinds of non-living things. An asteroid, a cloud, and a star. Three things that are as different as can be. But, they are all made of primary particles that are interchangeable. And any atoms or molecules common to two or all three of them would also be interchangeable.

All the same can still be said if you throw a living entity into the group. All four things can do something that none of the other three can. However, living entities can do a type of thing that none of the others can. Only living entities process information. At the very least, all have DNA, and that means information is being processed. Protein is being synthesized. That's a different category of thing than anything non-living does.

All the life processes - metabolism, respiration, circulation, immune system, etc. - are physical. But, although I couldn't guess what percentage, a whole lot of it is also processing information. Physical, but vastly more complex than anything non-living. Both because of the information processing, and because the many processes all benefit the overall entity. As opposed to, say, the earth. Even without any life, there are all kinds of systems. Plate tectonics, weather, water cycle, erosion, whatever. It's not all to keep the planet going. The planet would still be a planet if it was a giant hunk of iron, with nothing happening at all.

I think it's interesting that we have made things that process information. For the first time, something other than life is processing information. I wonder if that is the most important, the defining, characteristic of life. And what would it take for us to consider an information processing device alive.

Life Itself is a pretty heavy slog through "causally closed systems" and what not. The last chapter was pretty fascinating. — frank

Is that what you were specifically recommending of his?

Is that what you were specifically recommending of his? — Patterner

Only if you're really interested in it. If you take the stance that final cause (or causally closed systems) is just folk psychology, I think you'll end up having to explain why a causally open system (which all dead things are) is raised above the folk level. How is it? Could it be that bias toward a certain world view, which prioritizes physics, is the real motivator? So we end up as neo-Kantians, with an array of formats for organizing things for the sake of comprehension. That would be my synopsis. It's been a while since I read it.

Well, it's not terribly expensive, so worth checking out. I've never heard of causally closed systems or folk psychology. My world view prioritizes consciousness. None of the physics matters without consciousness.

My world view prioritizes consciousness. — Patterner

Maybe life is a result of consciousness. Living things have been altering the oceans, the land, and the atmosphere since they first appeared. Every move they've made has led to further expansion and complexity. It's as if Life is a single entity reaching for self determination. Maybe consciousness is what's been causing it all this time.

no. That is an incredibly uncharitable straw man.

I explained myself completely. Have another go.

Thanks. Looking forward to it. — Questioner

You are welcome. :) It is not something special. I just suddenly realised that consciousness is just a perception which perceives all the other perception. This idea is from Kant's definition of Apperception. I have not read the whole CPR myself, but did read many parts using different editions, and I recall that is the idea of Apperception.

Apperception is not related directly to a priori or experience as such, but it is the foundation of the a priori concepts. I should have looked into CPR and confirmed the passage regarding Apperception, but had no time to do so, hence just writing a quick post on it purely relying on my memory during my quick coffee break.

Scientific research on consciousness is all about how our sense input is channeled into our brain, and processed into knowledge, emotions and information. It doesn't touch what consciousness is.
One thing clear is that it is not physical. It is a perception in higher level, which perceives all the other perceptions, emotions, feelings, sensations, memories and imaginations ... etc.

Maybe life is a result of consciousness. Living things have been altering the oceans, the land, and the atmosphere since they first appeared. Every move they've made has led to further expansion and complexity. It's as if Life is a single entity reaching for self determination. Maybe consciousness is what's been causing it all this time. — frank

Indeed. I believe consciousness plays a role in evolution. I believe consciousness is a different thing than mental abilities. I believe that, as mental abilities increase, the entity intentionally increases its likelihood to be selected for.

And now, we are trying to make AI, which will be conscious of its own mental abilities, which will be different from our own, but which will also intentionally work to increase their survival.

One thing clear is that it is not physical. It is a perception in higher level, which perceives all the other perceptions, emotions, feelings, sensations, memories and imaginations — Corvus

I never claimed it was. You seem to be having some difficulty comprehending what is meant by the function of a biological structure. Here are a couple of quotes of things I previously posted in this thread -

Consciousness is the function of the structures of the brain. Consciousness consists of the "content" produced.

Consciousness is not physical. It is the function of the physical. It is a function of the structure operating in highly complex electrochemistry.

***

If I understand correctly, you are talking about a unified consciousness that connects fragmented perceptions, emotions, feelings, sensations, memories and imaginations, etc., into a singular experience of consciousness. This is achieved through the coordinated functioning of the brain. Brain mechanisms integrate, synchronize and model information, transforming individual mental processes into a coherent “stream of consciousness”

You seem to be having some difficulty comprehending what is meant by the function of a biological structure. — Questioner

I am not particularly interested in biological structure of brain. It is not a topic for philosophy. Philosophy deals with rational analysis on the abstract parts of the mind and universe.

If I understand correctly, you are talking about a unified consciousness that connects fragmented perceptions, emotions, feelings, sensations, memories and imaginations, etc., into a singular experience of consciousness. This is achieved through the coordinated functioning of the brain. Brain mechanisms integrate, synchronize and model information, transforming individual mental processes into a coherent “stream of consciousness” — Questioner

I feel you are still misunderstanding the points. Consciousness does not connect anything. It perceives the other mental events and states.

You don't have to bring in the functions of biological structure which tells you have your brain, so the brain makes all things happen in your mind. Everyone knows that. We were trying to figure out what is it that, we call consciousness conceptually and logically. It is the higher level of perception which oversees all the other perceptions and mental activities.

Apperception is not related directly to a priori or experience as such, but it is the foundation of the a priori concepts. — Corvus

Apperception is the process of interpreting information in the context of existing information.

Brain mechanisms integrate, synchronize and model information, transforming individual mental processes into a coherent “stream of consciousness” — Questioner

How, Questioner? You're giving an opinion which is not well supported. How could that process result in conscious, first-personal experience? There is a massive, massive gap in your attempts to explain your position.

How could that process result in conscious, first-personal experience? — AmadeusD

Clearly, science has not solved the hard problem, but it is difficult for me to accept explanations that are supported only by faith, not evidence. There's like this science-epistemophobia going on

Apperception is the process of interpreting information in the context of existing information. — AmadeusD

Not sure what you mean by that. That is not what Kant said, is it?

it is difficult for me to accept explanations that are supported only by faith, not evidence. — Questioner

You should accept explanations supported by reasoning and logic. Faith is for religion. You seem to be confused between philosophical reasoning and religious dogma.

There's like this science-epistemophobia going on — Questioner

Nothing like that going on at all. Just saying biological explanations are not really in the category of philosophical interest.

not evidence. There's like this science-epistemophobia going on — Questioner

Another point. Science does not always offer absolute truths on all their claims. There are always prevalent and possible errors on their observations, experiments and their reasoning for establishing theories. There are also possible frauds and fabrication on data collections and unjustified research methods for making up fake claims just to secure grants and donations.

And if and when new discoveries are made by philosophical or other scientific investigations, all the accepted old truths will collapse and become superstitious nonsense. That is science. And that is why they need philosophical reflection, analysis and verification on their claims.

Blindly revering, adoring, admiring and accepting claims just because they are scientific is naive and unintelligent attitude.

Hmm, that's fair prima facie. I think you're overworking what is being said on the otherside. No one is saying "science" is wrong, or rejecting the scientific information you refere to. But you have squarely accepted the disconnected here implicitly:

Clearly, science has not solved the hard problem — Questioner

I agree. As would anyone but Dennett, RIP, really. That is what we are asking you about, as I see it. How is it possible that those processes, none of which are conscious or contain consciousness, can result in it? You're right - there is no scientific explanation. That's why these questions keep cropping up :) I hope this clarifies somewhat.

You seem to be confused between philosophical reasoning and religious dogma. — Corvus

I agree, largely.

Not sure what you mean by that. That is not what Kant said, is it? — Corvus

That is just the definition of apperception. For Kant, this was explained as the existence of the thinking "I" viz the fact of the "i" existing in perception is apperception - perception of one's self and it's place among sensation. Kant's is just an abstract/large-grained description of the process above to me. Is there any real daylight between them to you?

How is it possible that those processes, none of which are conscious or contain consciousness, can result in it? You're right - there is no scientific explanation. — AmadeusD

The wording I like is - How can we be certain this is how it works if we don't have any idea how it works?

Science does not always offer absolute truths on all their claims. — Corvus

Correct, science does not. They offer best explanations based on the evidence.

There are always prevalent and possible errors on their observations, experiments and their reasoning for establishing theories. — Corvus

That observations are always in error is a dubious claim.

There are also possible frauds and fabrication on data collections and unjustified research methods for making up fake claims just to secure grants and donations. — Corvus

Philosophers are saints, and scientists are sinners?

Blindly revering, adoring, admiring and accepting claims just because they are scientific is naive and unintelligent attitude. — Corvus

Of course.

But blindly rejecting claims just because they are scientific is naive and unintelligent, too.

Tell me, do you think that the philosophical zombie is a possibility - a human being physically identical to human being (acts like a human) but has no conscious experience?

That's why these questions keep cropping up — AmadeusD

Philosophers have been concerned with the questions surrounding consciousness for hundreds of years. All those questions really boil down to the nature of reality itself. Science may have something to contribute and to limit one's investigation solely to philosophy ignores a large body of knowledge.

Many philosophical questions will remain, no doubt. Any serious exploration of consciousness concerns itself with both the philosophy and the science of mind.

Philosophers have been concerned with the questions surrounding consciousness for hundreds thousands of years. — Questioner

All those questions really boil down to the nature of reality itself. — Questioner

This seems a total non sequitur. Can you make the connection, in context rather than in abstract?

Science may have something to contribute and to limit one's investigation solely to philosophy ignores a large body of knowledge. — Questioner

No one is doing this. That's largely why you're frustrating people: you're relying on an erroneous assumption to reject points being made. No one is saying science has nothing to say about consciousness - we're saying it doesn't, currently, have a line on this particular issue. The talk about brain structure and function doesn't get to the point we're on, though, you have been right about all that. This is why we're still trying to tease it apart.

Any serious exploration of consciousness concerns itself with both the philosophy and the science of mind. — Questioner

I'm not sure what you mean by 'science of mind' - i'm unsure there is a science of mind - precisely because science doesn't have the line on the subject we would like it to have.

To be clear, I'm not even rejecting that neural correlates of consciousness will be found. Many researches, such as Sam Harris, make that an optimistic, but not sanguine, hope. I am merely pointing out that we have no warrant to claim that this is the case, or make sweeping statements about hte nature of consciousness. We simply don't know what it is or how it works, at base.

The wording I like is - How can we be certain this is how it works if we don't have any idea how it works? — Patterner

That is fantastic lol. Thank you.

This seems a total non sequitur. — AmadeusD

Consciousness makes our reality - as does matter and energy - so it may be pertinent to see what physics has to say about it all. I'm not that familiar with quantum theory, but I want to learn more.

The talk about brain structure and function doesn't get to the point we're on, though, you have been right about all that. This is why we're still trying to tease it apart. — AmadeusD

Okay, I will try to be more open-minded

I'm not sure what you mean by 'science of mind' — AmadeusD

I am currently reading The New Science of Consciousness: Exploring the Complexity of Brain, Mind, and Self - I'll fill you in as I read. Right now, I just started Chapter Two - The Science and Philosophy of Mind

Consciousness makes our reality — Questioner

Is this like a new-agey thing? If not, where is this deriving from for you?

As far as I know, there's nothing to suggest that this is at all the case except (forgive the use of the word) immature kinds of spirituality. I don't think we know enough about consciousness to make such a claim, either way. Consciousness is just the basis of sentient experience, not reality. Well, on currently available information. The world exists without us.

I am currently reading The New Science of Consciousness: Exploring the Complexity of Brain, Mind, and Self — Questioner

Ah right, nice. Nunez. Happy to receive your updates - But he leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. He seems ignorant to most of the philosophical underpinnings of the questions he asks, and make some wild non sequiturs to conclude, for instnace, from social networks, that hte brain acts that way. Like... what, bro? But again, happy to receive your updates. Just giving disclosure, i guess lol.

I do not accept that there is a "science of mind" currently. I get the inkling he's taking from Ernest Holmes - an overtly spiritual thesis which relies on an assumption that God is at the core of everything (and essentially equates God with consciousness). Very weird reading, i have to say.

Is this like a new-agey thing? — AmadeusD

No. What produces your reality?

happy to receive your updates. Just giving disclosure, i guess lol. — AmadeusD

I'll give you disclosure as I read

Very weird reading, i have to say. — AmadeusD

My favourite kind!

Correct, science does not. They offer best explanations based on the evidence. — Questioner

Evidence can be fabricated and manipulated.

That observations are always in error is a dubious claim. — Questioner

Not always, but possible. Please read the post correctly.

Philosophers are saints, and scientists are sinners? — Questioner

No one said that. You are saying it.

But blindly rejecting claims just because they are scientific is naive and unintelligent, too. — Questioner

There was no rejecting science. It was just identification and categorization.

Tell me, do you think that the philosophical zombie is a possibility - a human being physically identical to human being (acts like a human) but has no conscious experience? — Questioner

It could be a possible mental state for folks who cannot distinguish between the simple concepts, cannot read simple writings correctly, and repeating other's words in answering back.

That is just the definition of apperception. For Kant, this was explained as the existence of the thinking "I" viz the fact of the "i" existing in perception is apperception - perception of one's self and it's place among sensation. Kant's is just an abstract/large-grained description of the process above to me. — AmadeusD

Still sounds wrong. Where did you pick up the definition? Do you have the original texts implying above?

For Kant, this was explained as the existence of the thinking "I" viz the fact of the "i" existing in perception is apperception - perception of one's self and it's place among sensation. — AmadeusD

The thinking "I" doesn't exist in every perception and sensation, so the above is downright wrong. But if you present the relevant quotes from the original texts in CPR or any other Kant's work, we could investigate and analyze on it.