Bitcoin Forum

David Chalmers. Daniel Dennett. John Searle. Douglas Hofstadter. Roger Penrose. Stuart Hammeroff. Materialsim. Dualism. Panpsychism. The Hard Problem. The Chinese Room. The Star Trek Transporter Room.

Have a go at it...

David Chalmers' view, in a nutshell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo

Solipsist here. To me this is too metaphysical to be knowable.

Dennett largely claims it is knowable. But even so, it's the fact that it seems to be unknowable that makes it interesting.

Dennett's explanation of consciousness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48ol4sHasA8

I lean towards Chalmers.

Your mental states are the only things you have access to. Even the perception of another mental state is still only within the purview of your perception. You cannot conclude the existence of anything outside of your mental states.Therefore only your mental states exist.

As for myself, I can only be a perceived entity. Nothing more. Nothing more can be proven to you.

The existence of your perception can only be proven to your perception. Mine can only be proven to mine.

The human brain, its structure and so forth can only be proven as a perception while being perceived by another perception.

Understand where I am coming from? As long as we are limited to our perceptions -- how we provably cannot be is not yet shown -- reality outside the individual perception is not yet provable. Any stability, consistency and so forth can only be reasonably explained as a perception as well.

The structure and beauty we perceive is not proof. It only is. It's all just perception. It's all just mental states.

Anyways, this is now making me depressed. I am going to bed.

Yes, but you might want to differentiate more clearly perceptions vs. qualia. Both Dennett and Chalmers would probably agree with what you're saying, which means something is amiss with you what you're saying. Dennett and Chalmers both agree that 1 + 1 = 2, but that's generally not the subject of the discussion. When you start thinking of it in a way where you agree with one and disagree with the other, then you're on the right track.

On a different note, but related, would you (or anybody reading this) step into the Star Trek Transporter Room, assuming it has been demonstrated to work 100 percent of the time?

I've only heard Daniel Dennet speak a few times (never read any of his stuff), and I remember him being unimpressive.

My take...


God:  "I am Who am."

That is consciousness.

Dennett does not satisfy me either. Basically, he claims that we are essentially tricked into thinking we're conscious.

Here's the deal though - if you found Dennett unsatisfying, then you must read Chalmers.

I would hope solipsism is assumed. I doubt it is. Losing faith in a god is one thing. Losing faith in reality as more than perception is another.

If a transporter was proven to exactly replicate the mind as it was, I would use it. My perceived reality has been proven to be stable thus far and I would trust it in this circumstance.

Otherwise, I don't fear death.

This takes more faith than believing in a giant spaghetti monster.

Some of the terms and concepts worth getting to know to enrich the discussion:

- Philosophical zombies
- The Hard Problem
- The Chinese Room
- Panpsychism
- Materialism
- Dualism
- The Explanatory Gap

And I'd like to mention again that I personally think the Star Trek problem is worth discussing as well, as it helps one think about the connection of consciousness to physical matter.

So you would submit yourself to being killed, and allow a replica of yourself which contains the exact memories and brain structure to be created to replace yourself?

Honestly, I mostly rely on myself to do the thinking when it comes to these kinds of topics (e.g consciousness, mental vs. physical reality, the Universe, etc).  I studied a ton of Buddhism and a lot of Hinduism, Taoism, and Native American philosophies.  About 8 years of that led me to realize that if I want to truly know about things like consciousness, there is no better person to turn to than my self.  I have a good friend with whom I'll share a lot of my ideas, and I find that voicing my ideas does help me to understand things better.  But, knowing something is much different than trying to represent it abstractly either through thought or through words.

You gotta feel consciousness to know what it is, and to really feel it you must calm your thoughts.  You must remove all preconceptions that you may have had about it.  You need to directly feel and experience consciousness in all it's naked glory.

This is why meditation can help a person find the answers to some of life's hardest questions.

How can you prove my perception was destroyed and not reincarnated to the replica?

How can we deduce which latter event is more probable?

How can we take an "if" as a premise?

Hypotheticals form unsound arguments.

There's a reason quantum physicists don't bother with hypotheticals.  They're interested in what's observed.  "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, did it make a sound?"  Answer:  The question is pointless and fails to beget an answer.

You propose only nihilism because arguments in this subject level must take faith in prior axioms. There are only some things that can be truly observed depending on the level and subject of the argument.

However the funny thing is that I am arguing for the lowest skeptical viewpoint possible: the only thing that can be proven to your perception is your own perception. Nothing else can be proved to be observable outside of the realm of self.

Anyways, we're getting very deep. I hope the arguments ahead don't stay at their current level. Let's go deeper.

I don't propose nihilism at all.  Truth cannot be known through thought or through words.  You cannot abstract it if you want to truly know it.  And, faith is critically important to happiness and is arguably one of the root causes of our ability to survive.  Faith basically boils down to intention.

"What one can know, he cannot prove.  What one can prove, he cannot know." 

Truth is varying human concepts only catering to various human desires. It cannot be known universally.  Objective reality, which one can consider truth, just is. It does not have any ties to the human perception, assuming anything exists outside your individual perception.

Let me make that clear: It just is.

Ones own truth can be known to oneself through whatever medium they please, whether it be through words or cognitive means.

Intention does not have meaning to all individuals.

Anyways, I can believe some things are more probable than others but I cannot have complete faith in anything. I cannot even choose to do so. Some systems always inevitably fail even when such failure was not expected.
 
Immortality has yet to be proven in some observable systems. Even immortality as a concept, may find itself non-existent.

Now if non-existence and existence were to cease as concepts... What if the rules saying in order for they to be existence there must be nonexistence ceased?

Then what exists outside of existence? Can there be a plane of perception outside of this?

Goddamn, I am going to fucking bed.

In the end, currently, existence can only be defined within your individual perception. All else is pedantry.

Consider the following two scenarios:

1. You step into the transporter room and your body is scanned at the molecular level and you are recreated somewhere else. Only problem is, the machine failed to actually destroy your body at this location. A service technician approaches you and says: "Sir, a minor glitch occurred. If you could come this way we'll manually finish the process..."

2. You step into the transporter room and your body is scanned at the molecular level and you are recreated not once, but three different times in three different locations. Clearly, you, the person who stepped into the transporter room, can't be all three of the newly created individuals. Granted, from their perspective, each of the three are you and fully believes in the success of the transportation process, but logically, at the very most, you are only one of them, and the other two are not. It makes further sense that you are in fact none of them, and are in fact, dead, forever, and not experiencing the world at all.

I understand what you're saying, and it's worthy of discussion, but it's not addressing the Hard Problem (note the capitalization). Why does the structure and function of the brain give rise to qualia? By the way, another term worth coming to grips with is the Explanatory Gap.

Two or more identical perceptions does not entail death of the former. It does not refute the possibility of reincarnation.

I'm not quite agreeing with you, from a common sense point of view.

Also, on a different note, consider this: you lose consciousness, for whatever reason, i.e. being put under for surgery, passing out, sleep, etc. When you regain consciousness, what does that mean, exactly? The most likely scenario is you only think you were the person you were before you lost consciousness, precisely because you have those memories - in a sense, you are fooled into believing you exist as something moving through time.

Let's take it further. For most every conscious instant of your life, you possess the memory of being what you were, thus you have this sense of identity, whereas the truth of the matter is, you might as well be the recreated replica of yourself as Captain Kirk is when he beams down to a planet.

To reiterate: Captain Kirk steps into the transporter room and is vaporized - killed. His form is recreated exactly on the planet's surface at the molecular level, and thus the new Captain Kirk has the memories of the former Captain Kirk, and thus believes he is the former Captain Kirk, but he isn't. The former Captain Kirk is dead.

However, this isn't just happening to Captain Kirk. It happens to everyone, every moment of their life.

Haha another thread on this. I will move my discussion here (unless first ascent wishes to keep them separate).

My understanding of Chalmers is based on reading  this (http://consc.net/papers/facing.pdf) and  this (http://consc.net/papers/nature.pdf). Basically, I disagree with him because he does not really consider why we accept other fundamental concepts (instead he accepts them without requiring an explanation of "why"), and he ignores that the ineffability of experience may be due to the serial structure of language rather than that consciousness arises due to fundamental aspects of our universe (more degrees of freedom in response to changes in surroundings -> higher consciousness). From this we can gather that limitations on communication make it impossible to describe your experiances to an entity that is either more or less conscious than you. If every "conscious" entity is different in some way, then consciousness is indeed ineffable.

Star Trek transporters:
The transporters are designed to only use the energy from the vaporization to prevent the creation of multiple replicates. Of course this fails when you see people being transported from locations without transports, an external source of energy would be needed to accomplish this feat... but you could still design it to only have access to enough energy to replicate one person. I guess things could go wrong, especially when transporting more than one person, but whatever... it's star trek. The biology technobabble drives me crazy, they could have just paid a biologist some small amount of money to consult rather than have the characters spout nonsense to millions of people. I guess it wasn't worth it since most people just don't care either way.

The molecules that make up a person are "fungible".
E= mc^2. The important thing is which molecules are in which position in space relative to each other. So in essence "the self" is a form of very high resolution spatial coordinates of a wide set of molecules. There is space-time and energy, the way that energy is distributed throughout space-time is the most basic form of "information". If the distribution of energy was uniform, there would be only two pieces of information: The total energy and the volume of space-time. For currently unknown reasons the distribution of energy is non-uniform. This is observable fact, and all of the "Hard Questions" are ultimately different approaches to determining why the distribution of energy is non-uniform. Some theories rely on the idea (chalmers) that information is as/more fundamental than distribution of energy.

Why is there space-time and why is there energy?
This is like asking why 1=1. It is hardwired in our brains to understand that 1=1. If what was previously thought to be "one" is actually divisible upon further examination, then ok. This is an error due to understanding the degree of granularity, not a problem with 1=1. As far as anyone can derive from what has been observed the the granularity is determined by the  planck constant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant#Atomic_structure):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/0/b/2/0b2013e124afcfadbde9c10021f127f7.png

The total energy available to the universe is estimable if we assume the speed of light is independent of spatial coordinates, the rate of expansion of the universe is constant, and the distribution of energy is constant if smoothed at large scales.  (arguable, and if the rate of expansion of the universe continues to accelerate we will never have a way know if this is really true outside of "time travel"). The second factor is the upper bound on the wavelength of light, which is currently considered to be infinite. An upper bound on the wavelength (or mathematical proof it could not exist) would be the most important number ever measured.

So it may be impossible to "prove" that 1 always equals 1, regardless of what our brains are capable of comprehending.

Our brains have the structure they do because:
It is a robust solution to the problem of "make this species (species=capable of breeding) reproduce at a faster rate than they die " in the context of "an environment that unpredictably changes over the course of time". Understanding the nature of the universe has been irrelevant to this process, except in the context of relative rhetorical skill, and leadership ability. There is no reason we should expect to be able to comprehend concepts of 1/=1, etc (e.g. "consciousness") outside of how it allows us to predict the behavior of other systems (the most relevant and unpredictable of which is other humans) based on our past experience.

If there was evidence that 1 did not equal 1, could language describe this in a way that "satisfied" those that did not spend a lifetime examining the data and modelling it? I think not. The problem of communicating "experience" needs to be addressed before drawing conclusions as to the nature of "experience", "consciousness", etc.

Energy input is irrelevant. One could just as well discuss the teleporters in the lab of Jeff Goldblum's character in The Fly. The point is, given a perfectly good transporter (not one which mixes your DNA with a fly's DNA), would you use the transporter?

As for the rest of what you said, in time...

Yep if they got the error down to less than what occurs in an hour it would be worth it. Maybe even a day or a couple months of error.  Star trek never explored this but the error could make you smarter, it is more likely accelerate the slow dying process though. But look at how many people play the lottery...

Your exposure to Chalmers is limited. Let's call this fact A.


See fact A, above. Why would you assume this?


Conscious experience does not defy description. It is in fact quite easy to relate one's experience to another. Do not confuse sharing of experience with understanding the causal relationships which give rise to consciousness.

So you would submit yourself to being killed? I'm assuming then that you equate teleportation to that of waking up in the morning, or more accurately, the idea that every moment of your life is like being killed and reborn, where your current state is only related to your prior state because you have the memory of the prior state.

I'll address your other points with in context qoutes later. The simple answer to this is yes. The better answer to your question is that you are equating death/killed to change for no reason. Death is an extreme subset of change. The moment of death is not a mundane moment. Also, life is the process of dying.

This is simply not true. Consider both the Hard Problem and the following "Hard Question": why is there something, rather than nothing?

A uniform distribution of energy, either within a finite space, or infinite, would seem to be something, rather than nothing. With regard to the Hard Problem, it is not the question as to what information is. Sadly, you're again committing the same errors you've committed in the past. That is to say, you're mining papers for nuggets of information to give what you believe is an understanding of a topic. Those topics would be Chalmer's view on consciousness, and climate change and how man influences it in different ways, and how climate change affects life on Earth.

Did I mention that you should read some books? Try these:

The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory by David Chalmers
The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery
The Future of Life by Edward O. Wilson
The Dominant Animal by Paul Ehrlich

I have admittedly only read two of chalmer's summary papers. But neither addressed my point (unless I misunderstood his characterizations of reductionists)


This is the main point I gathered. He believes there is no reason to think consciousness necessarily arises from a complex system (ie a brain). Well, we have a sample of n=1 system as complex as a human brain that can communicate consciousness in a way we understand, and this system displays consciousness. From this data we can gather that physical processes can lead to consciousness, but say nothing about the likelihood of this. He proposes that these physical processes may not always lead to consciousness, but this is based off no data. It is entirely plausible that a system like the brain always results in consciousness.

That's actually a question independent of consciousness, although, as you're interpreting it, can also be used to address why consciousness exists.


Again, you're simplifying observations made by Chalmers, and then answering questions with answers that you think are satisfactory. Consider this: Which physical processes give rise to consciousness, and whatever they are, let's call them P1. Does P1 alone give rise to consciousness, or does it require P1 + P2 to give rise to consciousness?

So, it would help to know what P1 is exactly, and it would help to know if there is a P2 that is also required. Sort of Philosophy of Mind's Dark Energy, so to speak.

Furthermore, suppose it is just P1 that is required? What is it about P1 that allows something to come into being that just doesn't seem to fit with cosmology and physics. In other words, can you reconcile how physics (in its ultimate form) could essentially explain everything and yet not predict consciousness?

Right, the question is whether it is:

p1 +p2

p1 x p2

p1^8 - p2^-3

etc

The human brain can only intuitively understand simple relationships. For example, it is known for misunderstanding exponential functions which are relatively simple compared to all the interacting factors that give rise to consciousness.

Our current understanding of physics is incomplete and cannot predict many emergent phenomenon. From my reading, Chalmer's thinks that consciousness is a special case because it can not be directly observed by a third party.

Thanks for saying what I've been trying to say in less than a paragraph.

Is that why Chalmers thinks consciousness is a special case? Maybe you're right. Please elaborate.

If you (that means you, Boss) would like a better articulation of the dilemma, then read the following paper (read it slowly; do not skim it), which helps to summarize the three competing views, two exemplified by Dennett and Chalmers:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=levine%20%22on%20leaving%20out%20what%20it%27s%20like%22%20filetype%3Apdf&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC4QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fphilosophy.stanford.edu%2Fapps%2Fstanfordphilosophy%2Ffiles%2Fwysiwyg_images%2Fraymore.pdf&ei=KwJLT9uIBszjsQL44Y3rCA&usg=AFQjCNEEsx4W2hRPYNiiQMEy2D0a8jGG9Q&cad=rja

Well he makes the argument that we cannot get evidence either way that physical processes are sufficient to give rise to experience. In lieu of data he proposes using the thought experiment of "philosophical zombies" to show that it is at least "logical" to think that they are not. From this he develops his framework of psycho-physical laws. If this framework is accurate, we should be able to look for evidence of consciousness in the form of it's effects on measurable physical processes.

The major leap of faith I see in this is that "If you can imagine it, it is possible".

Given scientists' incomplete understanding of physics (something I agree with), tell me, can you imagine some additions to physics which would allow for the emergent phenomenon of conscious experience? In other words, submit a theory, even if half baked and fanciful, which would show how physical processes can explain conscious experience.

Key words: half baked, fanciful.

Go for it.

Point: if you find the task suggested above difficult, and the resulting ideas you might come up with unsatisfying and maybe absurd, then consider that Chalmers' ideas are no more outlandish.

Out of the Big Bang, point to the physical laws, or the physical matter, or the processes, which allowed consciousness to arise.

1. The Big Bang happens.
2. Matter forms into various objects.
3. Physical processes allow for more complex structures.
4. Parts of the Universe become aware of the Universe. How and why would that happen?

Somewhere in the above timeline (perhaps before 1 or between 1 and 2), physical laws came into being. You could almost say it's coincidental with the existence of mathematics. I don't know whether you'd call this step 0, or 1.5, or 0 and 1.5.

Steps 2 and 3 naturally follow.

Step 1 is a bit problematic. Physicists are working on it. It's a pretty interesting problem. Step 4 is problematic as well. Again, a pretty interesting problem. Step 0 and/or 1.5 are problematic and interesting as well.

The problem that neuroscientists are working on does not qualify as one of those 'interesting' problems. Don't get me wrong - it's very interesting relative to tax law, agriculture, etc., but it's just not one of the big problems. When neuroscientists say they're trying to understand consciousness, what they're saying is they're trying to understand what physical brain processes correlate to consciousness. In other words, they're peeling back the layers to discover neural correlates.

That still leaves question 4 unanswered.

FirstAscent, have you seen this?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMrzdk_YnYY

How and why indeed! Is part of the universe aware of the universe??

What if life is merely a chemical chain reaction of certain chemicals that fuels other chain reactions that fuel other chain reactions that fuel other chain reactions that fuel other chain reaction... ect., until you get from 3. where you had only the chemicals to an appearance of 4. where there are so many simultaneous chain reactions going on fueling each other that a mere bigger picture emerges while what's really going on is still just a humongous number of chain reactions fueling each other?

Isn't this a pointless scenario since we don't have a such a machine and we do not know if matter can even be manipulated in such a way? Isn't it like asking: "If you were super man and you were flying and suddenly a meteorite with kryptonite inside hit you midair you, would you fly to the sun at the risk of dying or would you land and try get some human to remove the kryptonite dust off of you?"

If lots of X give rise to Y (lots of chain reactions give rise to conscious experience), then there must be some fundamental law present in the laws of the Universe that says X (a chain reaction) is the fundamental building block of conscious experience.

What is that particular physical process? Is it related to electricity? Structure? Shape? Oscillation? Frequency? Distance? Calcium? Zinc? Quantum entanglement? Something else?

Or is it something not within the realm of physics? Physics is a set of laws that man has used to describe his observations of the Universe. Consider that last sentence very carefully.

I'll repeat it again: Physics is a set of laws that man has used to describe his observations of the Universe.

The key point in the above sentence is that physics is the result of man explaining something. But in the process of developing physics, man forgot to include within his observations of the Universe his observations of the existence of consciousness. This is not a fault of physics - but it should point out that the science of physics never endeavored to explain everything. Rather, it endeavored to explain everything minus conscious experience.

Now, given that, does that mean that consciousness is an artifact of laws which exist in combination with physics, or within physics that isn't yet developed?

Absolutely not. There is nothing pointless about pondering the ramifications of another physical structure that has the exact same molecular content as another. It's an absolutely necessary thing to consider if you wish to understand the ramifications of nature. It's very much worth considering as a mental exercise.

Without even reading further than that, let me stop you right there. I never said lots of x give rise to y, I said lots of x give the appearance of y while it's still just lots and lots of very complicated relationships of x.

Then why not go with something that does exist and we know how to manipulate such as cloning?

Furthermore, we can do quantum teleportation in the lab.

Cloning has nothing to do with it. That's why.

You're starting to sound like Daniel Dennett. You might want to read him. A good introduction would be his book "Sweet Dreams": http://www.amazon.com/Sweet-Dreams-Philosophical-Obstacles-Consciousness/dp/0262541912/

You can find him on Youtube as well.

What?

You said "There is nothing pointless about pondering the ramifications of another physical structure that has the exact same molecular content as another." Isn't this what we call cloning?

No.

No thanks. I'm just bored and am having fun poking logical holes into your statements and theories and scenarios.

Riiiiight, but some magical teleportation device does?

Dude, before you go on, figure out why cloning is not what you think it is.

I know why cloning doesn't fit your scenario. Because by itself it's not enough to complete your scenario. It lacks the "memories" of a life. But what I'm asking is surely if you're going to deal in hypotheticals, where you're imagining a scenario just to ponder it's hypothetical ramifications, shouldn't it be a lot more fruitful if you chose a scenario that starts with reality and adds something that we know how to do but is only extremely hard such as cloning an individual and then having the clone have the same exact memories and not something we don't know how to do such as teleporting life?

In answer to your question as to it being more fruitful, the answer is no. Plain and simple.

Care to elaborate?

The purpose of thought experiments is to illustrate the conundrums that exist within a particular domain of study, and by doing so, those who become familiar with said thought experiments can then see the domain of study in a new light, which might allow them to think about the problem differently, and to better understand it.

Generally, the purpose of a thought experiment is not to find a way to build the gadgets in the thought experiment.

Equally important with regard to this particular matter, cloning is irrelevant, and will yield nothing. Clones not only don't have the same molecular structure and memories over time, they never have the same molecular structure from the start, as their growth is a function of the molecules they assimilate, which is different for each individual.

Right, cloning and memories alone aren't enough, you'd have to also feed the clone exactly the same molecules, grow it in exactly the same environment ect.. basically replicate the exact path of growth of the original, which is still a lot more likely doable unlike teleporting which doesn't exist.

But that's besides the point because you apparently believe there's something to be learned by observing a fantasy instead of the reality. Tell me what can you learn from my original example?:

Both my super man example and your teleporting example are fiction, they don't exist, so please explain to me what we can learn about reality through examining fiction?

Btw you were right, I looked up Dan Dennett on youtube and I already enjoy what little I saw. His theory is very close to how I think about the world.

So thanks!

I don't think your mental states are what you think they are.

Actually, your clone example above would likely be more difficult, or at least as difficult. And I'm not claiming that we'd ever be able to teleport human beings. However, I must point out now, for the second time in a row, contrary to what you keep insisting, quantum teleportation does exist.

As for imaginary devices in thought experiments, I consider you to be rather presumptuous and ill informed when you accuse me of not hoping to illustrate something or learn something by engaging in such thought experiments. Please direct your argument instead to those who have benefited from other thought experiments proposed by Heisenberg, Einstein, Bohr, Chalmers, Hofstadter, and others.

Is that teleportation of a living organism?


As far as I know they built their thought experiments on what they observed was possible meaning ontop of the rules of reality, without fiction.

See the problem I'm having with your example is that you cannot possibly know the rules it's governed by to be able to even begin imagining the results? With reality it's easy; we know what rules govern it. But as soon as you add fiction - a device that can teleport life - do you not, at that point, introduce a device for which you do not know what rules govern it and if so can not reach any useful conclusions? For example doesn't quantum mechanics say that no two electrons in the whole universe can be alike(same state) and that's a rule about reality which goes exactly against your thought experiment?

And I know you said it twice that quantum teleportation exists, but that doesn't tell me anything. I'm asking you if we have the technology to teleport a living organism?

I'll answer that when you tell me if we can do what you proposed with clones. Also, I suggest you send Chalmers an email about philosophical zombies. While you're at it, send Hofstadter an email about teleportation of living organisms.

Oh, and while you're at it, and since you're a fan of Dennett, send him an email about Mary in the black-and-white room.

Probably not. I don't know..

I've pondered this more than a few times.  Of course I've never come to any definitive conclusions.  I like the way you succinctly articulated the framing of this potentiality.  With no firm answer to this I think I'd probably not use the transporter without very good incentive to do so.

Another thought experiment that interests me:

Imagine you are about to be subjected to horrible torture for days or weeks on end.  At the conclusion of the torture all memory of the event will be wiped.  Knowing this, should you be scared or apprehensive going in?  If so, why?  What parallels can we draw from this to portions or the entirety of our experience in life?

You don't need a thought experiment for this. Take some Versed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midazolam) and do something scary. Go get your wisdom teeth pulled. You should have existential anxiety about your self being harmed whether you will have memory of the harmful events or not. Lacking memory of these events will cause you to have additional uncertainty about how much harm was actually done. This is especially true if there is little physical evidence of the harm. Maybe you said something terrible (betrayed someone) but can't remember it? You now have to rely on external information about yourself for that period of time, putting you at a disadvantage to others.

I disagree with the timeline. Specifically, there may be no evidence for the placement of #4. Parts of the universe could be said to have "awareness" of the universe starting at point #1. I don't want to go on until "aware" is defined more clearly.

Forgive me, but I must say it. You're kind of sad. The reason: we've been through this for probably five pages or so (in the other thread and here). Do you recall our discussion about qualia, conscious experience and so forth? Do you?

There comes a point, when in the course of discussion between two people, that usage of words should be understood. Either go back and review everything, or give up. I'm not going to waste my time defining awareness. I might with a newcomer, but not you.

Qualia, dude. Conscious experience. Get it?

Footnote: you've exhibited the same obtuseness with regard to parsing words related to climate change. It's holding you back, man. And yes, that means you.

Haha, exactly. Because the exact points where we misunderstand each other haven't been dealt with. This is what I meant by arguing over ambiguous definitions. So does a rock have conscious experience? Am I just as conscious as you? What about a dog? Is consciousness actually a binary phenomenon (have it or you don't), or is there a spectrum of degrees of consciousness?

http://philosophy.stanford.edu/apps/stanfordphilosophy/files/wysiwyg_images/raymore.pdf

Is this close to your definition? It is remarkably human centric. This is what I wanted to clarify. Are we talking about "aware like a human"?

I guess I wont get an answer then?

With regard to your question, I'm not clear why you're asking it. Not only are you incapable of answering my rhetorical question, but you actually think your question requires an answer. Why do you require me to answer your question? It boggles my mind. Don't you know the answer?

They have. You have had books recommended to you. You have had a long discussion with me about it. You have had links to papers provided to you. You have had the specific term in question (qualia) defined for you. We have been discussing it for more than a week.


No ambiguity here as to what the definitions are. If you still can't get it, you have had books recommended to you.


Those aren't definitions. Those are questions that are natural to ask and at the heart of discussion with regard to consciousness. Asking them at least demonstrates on your part an increasing understanding.

Because if we don't have the technology to teleport a living organism you can't possibly know the laws such a machine would be governed by and so I really can't for the life of me understand what possible insight could you gain by examining your fictitious scenario.. It'd be like theorizing how superman is affected by kryptonite in a melted form if he drank it -> who cares, neither exist in reality.

If we don't have the technology, and I'm not a scientist or an expert to know if we do or don't so, really, please do correct me if we do have such a technology or even good theories how to get there, but if we don't, we can't know how it would work once we invent it so we can't possibly learn anything by theorizing about it's use; and that is if the rules that govern reality even allow for such a machine to be invented.. For instance you still haven't addressed the obstacle of the Pauli exclusion principle in quantum mechanics that seems to stand in the way of your scenario being even possible.

Basically I'm asking what do you hope to learn about reality by examining a fantasy?

I assumed that you knew that we can't teleport a living organism. Googling quantum teleportation would answer that. But that's irrelevant. There is nothing wrong with assuming that teleportation could work. Here are the facts of the hypothetical scenario:

1. You are scanned and the position of every atom in your body is known.
2. You are reconstructed elsewhere.
3. Your original form is vaporized.

It's totally irrelevant if we can do it or not. Here's why: assume the process works flawlessly.

It's that simple. By assuming the process works flawlessly, you need not question the ramifications of the technology. Furthermore, I suggest you take up your personal issues with the scenario with well known thinkers on the subject of consciousness - not me.

You are wrong about being able to learn something about it if we can't do it. You totally miss the point of the exercise. The point of the exercise is to get one thinking about consciousness in a certain way to allow them the possibility of having new insights into understanding consciousness. Unfortunately, some people, such as yourself, like to nitpick on nonessential aspects of the discussion.

Answer: Pauli exclusion principle in quantum mechanics.

And what, exactly? What is your point?

I have no idea either.

So I've been watching and reading Penrose and/or Hameroff, and I've been somewhat fond of what they've been saying, but in my most recent foray into their ideas, it seems I'm hearing them say exactly what I suspect. It's this:

Consciousness (or more precisely qualia) is a fundamental component of the Universe. Even more specifically, they're saying (and I've said this as well in conversations with others), a conscious moment, or at least the fundamental building block of a conscious moment is the collapse of the quantum wave function.

So there you have it.

I think Stuart Hammeroff is on to something big, something that not only explains the conscious state but also what life is.  I simplify his theory like this. Living things use structures in the cytoskeleton to create a quantum state of superposition. This allows a momentary sidestep around decay, a sort of trick that puts effect ahead of cause. When the wave collapses the "live state" is maintained by knowing the most advantageous outcome.
This basic research so important. As a biology teacher I talk a lot about life. But I can't tell my students the difference between a dead bird and a live bird. So, WTF do I know?
All my physicist friends talk about a unified theory that includes the very big and the very small. To my mind any unified theory MUST include an explanation of what life and consciousness are. If you cant explain that, you have only a piece of a picture.   

Isn't life just a long string of chemical chain reactions causing other chemical chain reaction causing other chemical chain reaction causing other chain reactions ect..? And death would then be simply the end of a string of these chain reactions that run out of some sort of fuel..?

Hmm good point.  However the question was should not would.  The theoretical scenario was meant to frame what we consider to matter against a reality where this is likely meaningless.  All our memories and experiences end and disappear eventually, every good or bad feeling/experience ends.  I logically understand this, and yet it isn't fully internalized since I don't want to die, I want more good experiences and want less bad etc.  There isn't really an "answer" or anything to figure out, just interesting I to contemplate I think.

In Quantum Mechanics have they pinpointed under which scenarios the wave collapses?  Sorry I haven't done my research, but I do recall the double slit test where results retrieved indicate wave collapse only occurs when the photons are "observed".  Do you know of any sources that dig into what types of observation is required to collapse the wave?  If a camera records the photons does that collapse the wave or does something with "awareness" have to review the recordings for this to happen?  Can the question even be answered?

I'll google around about this but thought you might have some good insight since it seems you've done lots of research on this already.

Can you expand on why you find this difficult to explain?

"Observation" means to measure, which, in the most primitive form, I believe means to bounce a photon off of it (something like that). That's why to observe means to disrupt, because you have to interact with it.

But it's a little more complex that that. My take from it all is not to get hung up on a conscious being observing, and not to confuse that issue with the discussion here.

It's funny though, if you think of waves as intangible things, and particles as tangible things, and the interaction of particles as collapsing the waves, then what that means is things don't finitely exist unless interacted with, and I'm saying that wave collapse is the fundamental building block of consciousness, which is to say that existence (particles) vs. hypothetically existing (waves), is the building block of consciousness.

Something like that.

Interesting, thanks.  I've read that "objects" in super-position are able to stay in that state of potentially existing in many forms or places until they become entangled with "objects" in one position (wave has collapsed) known as decoherence I believe.  Which sounds essentially identical to what you're saying.  Makes some kind of crazy sense I suppose. 

To observe (or bounce a photon off) an "object" and collapse it's wave, requires that the observing photon is already collapsed, and the photon that "observed" that photon was already collapsed and so on (I am assuming 2 wave photons can interact and interfere without their waves collapsing).  This leaves me to wonder at what point the "first" wave collapsed, if a first wave collapsed, exactly what new criteria was present, and if we could consider this the beginning of awareness in our universe (or the beginning of the universe itself?). 

Did the Big Bang involve collapsed particles?  If so, what kind of observation was present?  We know that the double slit "delayed choice" experiment "demonstrates that extracting "which path" information after a particle passes through the slits can seem to retroactively alter its previous behavior at the slits".   Does the past exist as the past because it happened in the past or because it had to have "happened" for the current wave collapse state to exist, which came first or does it even make sense to ask the question in reference to our perception of time at all?

It seems to me that better understanding the exact entanglement or measurement required to collapse the wave would be an important and crucial piece of potentially understanding what consciousness is.

Might waves be able to collapse dependent on (or arbitrarily for) the observer?  Perhaps we all share and are entangled in the same collapsed wave state, with others sharing other collapsed wave states, could this make up a multi-verse?  Or does referencing the existence of an object in relation to other objects destroy it's ability to still potentially exist in other states?

I guess all this is a bit like asking "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it does it make a sound?" and answering with "if nobody is around to observe it the tree may not exist as a tree at all in first place".  Of course that's a hard thing to test and prove obviously.

After some more research it sounds like the prevailing wisdom is that collapse happens independent of consciousness.  However it seems that there is still contention regarding the issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind%E2%80%93body_problem

http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0509/0509042.pdf

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=507154

That's what I learned in school. However life's secret chemical formula has yet to be discovered and the whole theory is under increasing attack. There is something missing from that concept and even thermodynamic law comes into question when you posit a chemical reaction that does not seem to be subject to entropy.
It may still turn out to be a runaway chemical reaction. It's just not known. The only thing that seems clear is that once upon a time a molecule became alive, and it still is.  It has diversified and now includes potatoes, giraffes, mushrooms, germs, and you.  No one has ever been able to reproduce this phenomena, or even explain it. Does it happen all the time in the universe? Does it always lead to consciousness? Is consciousness even in our bodies, or do living thing just tune into it?
These questions may not be answered until we can create life from non-living material.

Hmmm have you heard about the synthetic cell? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyAOepIU6uo

Plus aren't you incorrectly describing how life is theorized came to be by saying "a molecule became alive" but rather that once upon a time certain molecules started chain reacting with each other and they still do today?

Well, Venter's project did not create life from non life. He created a molecule that, like DNA, can be read by a living cell. This synthetic DNA is then placed into the body of an already living organism. As the code is transcribed a hybridized organism is created. Kinda cool, but not a true second Genesis.
As to your other point, your right. "A molecule became alive", may be to crude a description. But a chain reaction is also not sufficient to explain what is going on. One of Hammeroff's interesting observations is finding "ordered" water in the cells of plants. Quantum effects can create ordered water and could be responsible. I can't defend all this research, it is just to early to know what is being discovered. This rabbit hole could be very deep indeed.

Here is something to think about. You probably learned in school that you think with your brain. signals are sent along neurons and processed by vast arrays of cells. That makes sense, but it can not be entirely correct. Consider the amoeba. It is a single celled organism with no neurons at all. Yet under my microscope I can watch them hunt, avoid things, even make choices about what to do next. How?

F#(K if I know???
 

Well aren't basically the molecules inside the Amoeba reacting with molecules in it's environment? Btw I'm a huge layman when it comes to biology and chemistry and I basically know only as much as I was taught about it in school and seen a documentary or read an article since..

I did however understand what that synthetic cell really was or how it was made but still to me it shows one important thing which is that the crucial molecules needed for life are nothing more than the right chemicals organized in the right way. I wished this stuff was open source and freely shared, I'd bet we'd have a lot of answers very fast.

Also, did you see this TED talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMrzdk_YnYY To me it was really really revealing as to how we should think about consciousness. It gets especially interesting from the 11min mark forward.

Even a PhD. in biochemistry would not answer our questions. That is what I like about this topic. The true, spooky unknown. I'll have to watch that video when I get home. Thanks for linking to it! :D
If we did succeed in making a living thing, it might be only the second time such an event has ever happened in the history of the universe. Or it may happen in every solar system.  :o

I think it's most likely life arose multiple times independantly on the early earth, but then one form was best and completely out-competed the others for resources. I've got no data for that though.


Amoebas will move along chemical gradients towards food and away from deleterious stimuli. Their responses to these things are pretty much (ignoring epigenetics for now) hard coded in their DNA. They have receptors on their surface that change conformation in response to binding external molecules, the internal portion of the receptor then has a different most stable conformation and thus begins a chain of reactions (with all sorts of feedbacks) that alter the cytoskeleton giving movement. This is well known, so what exactly are you looking for an explanation for?

I also doubt that life on Earth is a One-off. Since planets and stars everywhere look similar, why should life here be special? Maybe it did not even start here.
What I want to know about the amoeba is... Is it conscious? Or perhaps, when is the benchmark of consciousness crossed? A human is clearly conscious, an amoeba could be considered to be; but what about a chemical reaction? My guess is that consciousness and what makes something alive are closely related. 
P.S. Don't get me started on the epigenome! Wow, there a lot of undiscovered knowledge on that topic!

Did you watch that video yet?

You might find the Centauri-dreams blog interesting. Not necessarily today's blog entry, but as a whole. It discusses the Fermi Paradox, the Drake equation, search for extrasolar planets, search for life in the oceans of Jupiter's moons, interstellar probes, Dyson spheres, life, etc. Read it, search it, and so on.

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/

Now, regarding life in the Universe, consider the possibilities:

1. Many different kinds of life are bound to happen, given a primordial soup.
2. Just DNA life is bound to happen, given a primordial soup.

Or consider possibility three:

3. Given 500 billion galaxies, each having 100 billion stars, where it seems reasonable that a very large fraction of those stars (born out by the Kepler telescope's results) have rocky Earth sized planets in the habitable zone with liquid water, and most of those planets having a primordial soup at some point, and all those chemical reactions, that even so, the chance of the right sequence of molecular chain reactions happening to give rise to the precursor of life still turns out to be a million to one in this Universe.

Let me rephrase option 3 a little so you understand exactly what I'm saying: the molecular chain reaction to create life in this Universe happened just once, and it was a million to one against it for the entire life of the Universe. Conclusion: if you buy into option 3, life only exists on Earth, and it was a fluke.

Now, is option 3 unreasonable? No! Theories in cosmology predict that there are millions of Universes, so in at least one of them, life could've arisen once, and naturally we will be the ones witnessing it, because obviously we wouldn't be in one of those Universes where life didn't arise.

Do I believe in option 3? I consider it a possibility. I also consider option 1 and 2 possibilities.

Here's a very sobering thought, though. If we're all descendants from the same species of microscopic DNA based life, then it seems that it only happened once. Why aren't there other descendants from other primordial microscopic forms of life on Earth?

Now, let's move on to the second part: intelligent life and the possibilities.

1. Life is common in the Universe, but technology wielding life is a fluke.
2. Life is common in the Universe, and technology wielding life is common, but they never survive long enough to migrate throughout their home galaxy.
3. Life is common in the Universe, and technology wielding life is common, and they have spread through their home galaxy in a diaspora.

Consider 3. Where are they? It can be shown that even if near light speed is never obtainable, it should only take about a million years for a space faring civilization to spread throughout the galaxy. Where are they?

Let's consider the methods:

1. Superluminal speed is possible, and they can go anywhere, anytime.
2. Only a fraction of light speed is possible, and it would take several million years to traverse the galaxy. In this case, it would be about 50 years between the stars. Assuming colonies are setup along the way, they should still be here, unless their civilization fizzled. Remember, the key point is, other space faring civilizations would not necessarily have arisen coincident in time with ours. Presumably, many have arisen billions of years ago.
3. Even a moderate fraction of light speed is not possible. Consider our technology. Our fastest spacecraft would require something like 70,000 years to reach the nearest star, and it's only 4.5 light years away, as opposed to stars in our own galaxy that are nearly a hundred thousand light years away. Still, consider generation ships migrating outwards, or utilizing the resources in the Oort Cloud to hop our away across the void between the stars the way the Pacific Islands were colonized.

Do you wish to read an interesting book on the subject? Consider these two:

Entering Space: Creating a Spacefaring Civilization (http://www.amazon.com/Entering-Space-Creating-Spacefaring-Civilization/dp/1585420360/) by Robert Zubrin
Interstellar Migrations and the Human Experience (http://www.amazon.com/Interstellar-Migration-Experience-Applied-Sciences/dp/0520058984/)

Have you seen this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7TAGf4lOXA

Those three sound the most plausible to me. But I'm just guessing.

That (mostly) annoying emergent property that comes between naps.

 ;) ;D

Also, consider that the universe is about 14 billion years old and for the first 10 billion or so of those years there were not enough heavy elements to support the formation of rocky planets. Our local star is part of the third generation (about 5 billion years per generation) of stars, which is the first generation that could have rocky planets in orbit.

It really is possible that we are just the first species to develop space-faring technology.

no :-[  but i will, i promise.

Fascinating stuff guys.

I like to think there is other life out there. However I am not down with the UFO nuts. If some lander ever found a life form in space, my first question would be; Is it DNA based? If yes then I would assume it is related to Earths life forms. Perhaps part of a panspermia system.
If it is not DNA based I would tend to think that life is all over the universe and that there are many paths to achieving living status. I would also think that wherever life comes from is deeper than chemistry. Maybe life is a sub-atomic/quantum phenomenon?

I have a lot of reading to do.   

First Ascent would disagree, but I would say stop thinking of consciousness as a binary phenomenon and start thinking of it as a spectrum that is related to how complex a system (organism, cell) is.

Bitcoinbitcoin113 almost has it right, but not quite. His advice is just a little simple.

Obviously consciousness spans a spectrum from being highly aware to being sort of aware. If you've ever been put under, you know what I'm talking about. You just slowly drift out of consciousness.

What bitcoinbitcoin113 fails to address or acknowledge is that even variable things have quanta - i.e. most all things with variable amounts of power are still composed of units at some basic level. Bitcoinbitcoin113 might argue that it's a neuron, but that's because he's a neuroscientist and he clings to this logically false ideal that because of that, neurons must be the answer to saying why we're conscious. If you give it some hard thought though, you'll see how silly that is.

Fundamentally, consciousness is likely composed of simpler units. I subscribe to the idea that consciousness is composed of tiny proto-conscious units which are fundamentally part of the Universe.

http://vimeo.com/38101676

I would nuance this. I don't think "neurons must be the answer", just that it is most plausible.

And just what the heck is it about a neuron and it's firing that makes consciousness whereas something else doesn't?

I'll say it again: the brain's structure and organization capitalize on and efficiently build our level of consciousness from the most basic and primitive components which essentially already possess a sort of proto-consciousness at a very fundamental level.

I absolutely do not think that it is logical to believe that a set of neurons and their wiring should produce qualia otherwise.

I do believe that neurons and their wiring can produce behavior and zombie like memory, but there would be no qualia without there being some intrinsic qualia like property built into the Universe already at a deep down level.

The brain amplifies the sensing of qualia and organizes it into millions of different experiences, but it does not create qualia out of nothing.

Did you watch this TED talk?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMrzdk_YnYY

Also a question for you. Do you know of any computer on this planet as capable and running as many functions simultaneously as our brain is/does?

I watched part of the video.

The brain has about 100 billion neurons, each connecting to about 5,000 other neurons, giving about 500 trillion connections. It is these connections which are varying in strength which define our memory and how our brain will behave. In a simple computer model, you need to store both the strength of the connection, and the distance (to model synaptic timing). That's two values, preferably floats, which would require 4,000 terabytes. That would be a really simple model.

Get back to me, when you've seen the whole video, especially past the 11min mark, and get back to me when such a computer has been built.

Ummm, so I watched the video. He's doing good work - on the Easy Problem. No mention of the Hard Problem though. Get a solid understanding of the distinctions between those two problems, and then we can move on.

While perhaps not so pertinent to the hard problem, what do you guys think of Bruce Liption (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeZL72IStGo&feature=related)?

The marketing for his books and videos made me initially assume it was new agey nonsense (maybe it is).  He purports that our perceptions physically drive our biology, then he goes on to conclude that through various methods we can learn to alter our own perceptions to gain at least some mastery over the biology in our bodies.  The science he describes seems compelling however with only high school biology under my belt I feel completely unqualified to confirm or question in part or whole the science behind his work.

Honestly I have no idea how his conclusions are perceived by the science community.  Is this fringe stuff or fairly widely accepted?

Would be interest in your reactions.

Thanks.

Almost everything he is saying is widley known and commonly accepted, so I am not sure why he paints himself as a contrarian. I think some of the metaphors he uses are more confusing than they need to be (i.e perception=interaction between cell and environment).

There is only very weak evidence for directed mutations, and all of it is from single celled organisms. He is making a quite a leap of faith in jumping from that to the idea that human perception can alter DNA in some targeted fashion. However, it is generally accepted that mental state can affect the functioning of all the tissue in the body, the question is how much.

Agreed.

So are we settled then and in agreement that qualia is not any of the following:

- The intake of sensory data by the body's sensory organs
- The filtering and translation of that data from one neuronal pattern to another
- The presence of that data in some pattern of neuronal pattern of activity in a brain
- The continued firing of neurons which change neuronal patterns from one pattern to another
- The resulting pattern of neuronal activity in a brain which causes one to lift a finger and do something

The ability to be conscious of a thing, mentally, is the only manner through which anyone experiences anything!

Qualia:

http://i44.tinypic.com/106d3ea.png
I don't think we should assume that qualia can be satisfactorily described with human language.

Most people seriously studying it don't seem to have that problem.

It's the sensation of experiencing something. Pretty damn simple.

Isn't that circular? Can an entity sense something without experiencing it, or experience something without deriving a sensation from it?

Not really.


When a rock falls and hits the ground, does it have the sensation of experiencing the impact? If it does, then it's having the sensation of experience. If it does not, then it is not having the sensation of experience.

Let me make it simple for you. When you're dead, will you have the sensation of experiencing me smacking you in the face for your obtuseness, as opposed to you having the sensation of experiencing me smacking you in the face while you're alive?

I think both objects could be said to "have a sensation". The sensation a dead body experiances would be different than the alive one but not non-existent. That would be a kind of crappy definition of sensation though, along the lines of what that bruce lipton guy was using. I also wouldn't associate my cadaver with my "self" since it will have more in common with other cadavers than it does to my live self.

Of course it is but if I were you I wouldn't waste too much time with this "genius" arguing about it..  ::)

Is that because you do indeed believe in proto-consciousness? If yes, then Ok. If no, explain.

Seems reasonable, thanks.  While I knew that mental state can affect us physically I found it interesting to hear how that interaction occurs on a cellular level.


In the video that hazek posted they mentioned the part of the brain that seems to control our sense of self, and that if damaged we lose that subjective perspective and without it we have no way to judge or sense incoming stimuli (much like trying to gauge the speed of something in a vaccuum with nothing around it to make a comparative analysis?).  At least that was how I interpreted the way he explained it. 

Would this mean then, that these sense of self damaged (coma) people could "hear" or "see" but that what they lack is qualia?  Or is this considered wrong since qualia is not supposed to be explained by any physical process in the body?  Or do they have qualia but are not aware of it?  I suppose I'm having trouble distinguishing between self-awareness and qualia though I know they have different definitions.

It seems like trying to pin down qualia and wave collapse have similar difficulties.

That's exactly what I believe is reasonable to think is actually happening. And thank you for bringing that up since FirstAscent seems to have ignored it.

Our consciousness to me is nothing more than a clever way of streamlining the important data our brain receives that need immediate attention such as muscle movement and dealing with our 5 senses. I bet we will never have an artificial consciousnesses unless it's modeled after our nervous system. And when we get there the first conscious AI might be of the primitive kind like the one it is theorized the animals have.

Above all else I don't think it's anything special but cleverly put together chemicals operating under the rules of physics. Btw BBC Horizon just put out another highly interesting 60min documentary titled "Out of control" and talking about how much of what our brain and as a effect we do is conscious and and how much unconscious. I highly recommend it.

That would be a phenomenal zombie, as described by Chalmers.


That is up for debate and part of the Hard Problem.


That might be akin to having a base level of qualia, but not having a symbolic level of qualia.


Do they? Or is one just an amplification of another through a feedback loop with extra qualia attached each loop around.


I've never had trouble pinning down what qualia is. I experience it every waking moment.

I ignored it for certain reasons. See below.


You just described a mechanism. The reason I mostly ignore what you say is because mechanisms are part of the Easy Problem. Granted, the Easy Problem is very difficult and as of yet unsolved, but it's not the Hard Problem.

The two are separate.

Guess what, that's what we are. Nothing more, nothing magical about it, nothing special, just a biological mechanism and what we have and call consciousness is one of it's features. Actually it's the feature that most likely played a major rule in this mechanism surviving natural selection. And yes, I do not believe such a thing as free will exists.

Nobody's really talking about free will.

We already know that we are mechanisms. So is the Universe. And hurricanes. And drainage networks. And Chinese populations. And economies. And computer programs like SHRDLU. And internal combustion engines. And cameras.

Which of those have qualia? Which don't? As soon as you start to say why one or more have qualia, and others don't, then you're starting to address the Hard Problem.

I asked you this like 2 or 3 pages ago and I'll ask you again. Can you show me any other mechanism of the various mechanisms you just listed that is as complex and as capable as we and animals are?

So complexity creates qualia? Why?

The question you should be asking is how, not why. You can't find the right answer if you're asking the wrong question.

Sure.

So complexity creates qualia? How?

Heck if I know. But I think we as a species are on a good track to figure it out eventually. That TED talk at least is a good indication of that. I bet we're going to have a lot more answers to this question if we ever build an AI on the model of our nervous system.

You're totally missing the point. That's why I mostly don't pay attention to you.

And the reason why I think you're basically trolling is because the why question is as almost impossible to currently answer as the question of why we exist at all, or why anything exists at all. No amount of mental exercises are going to answer that. Also I think you're stuck on the feature and trying to explain it without looking under it's hood but rather thinking about what it can do which is just completely pointless. Kind of like trying to explain a car without looking at it's engine but rather looking at how fast it can go.

The problem is you think I'm trying to explain it. I'm trying to explain the problem, and then walk through the various thought experiments to demonstrate the differences in the views of materialism vs. dualism.

If you lean towards materialism, what is your justification?

Sounds awesome, I'll definitely check it out.  Thanks.


Hmm that might be it.  I was going off a description for self-awareness that seemed to treat qualia as coming from a separate "network" than awareness:

"self-awareness
Popular ideas about consciousness suggest the phenomenon describes a condition of being aware of one's awareness or, self-awareness. Efforts to describe consciousness in neurological terms have focused on describing networks in the brain that develop awareness of the qualia developed by other networks."

Though I realize now that that is an explanation in "neurological terms".



What I meant by "pin down" would entail knowing the answer to the lower quote.  It's true we all "experience" qualia every day, but that doesn't mean I understand how it works or why its there or even what it really is.

Personally I feel more comfortable trying to explain these questions in the manner hazek does, but this is probably because it makes more intrinsic sense to me, and not necessarily because it's the "right" answer.  I don't expect it to be "solved" definitively in my lifetime but I'm fascinated to follow developments and ponder the questions in the meantime.

I would imagine as science continues to give insights into the "easy" problems, theories on the hard problem will be refined.  In that sense I see value in the work done on struggling to answer both the "easy" and "hard" question.