Nothing can cause consciousness

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bahman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Consciousness is best defined by plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/.
Anything that lacks qualia is unconscious.
The debate about the existence of qualia is contentious and i have gotten into many debates about it. I think that it is obvious that qualia exist.
My arguments?
  1. If pain is only C-fibers firing and pain does not feel like anything, then torture is meaningless. It should not matter if one is tortured or not. Obviously, we do not want to be tortured and therefore Qualia are real.
  2. Can you imagine a triangle? The triangle in your mind has no physical counterpart. There is no physical triangle in your brain. Therefore, there is something ( the triangle) that exists but does not have a physical reality.* Therefore qualia exist.
  • it is not a way out of affirming the existence of qualia to state that qualia are an illusion since even illusions have a physical reality. A straw in water appears bent ( when it is not) but that illusion has a physical reality. The straw appearing bent can be photographed.
 
wittgenstein said:
Consciousness is best defined by plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/.
Anything that lacks qualia is unconscious.
The debate about the existence of qualia is contentious and i have gotten into many debates about it. I think that it is obvious that qualia exist.
My arguments?
  1. If pain is only C-fibers firing and pain does not feel like anything, then torture is meaningless. It should not matter if one is tortured or not. Obviously, we do not want to be tortured and therefore Qualia are real.
  2. Can you imagine a triangle? The triangle in your mind has no physical counterpart. There is no physical triangle in your brain. Therefore, there is something ( the triangle) that exists but does not have a physical reality.* Therefore qualia exist.
  • it is not a way out of affirming the existence of qualia to state that qualia are an illusion since even illusions have a physical reality. A straw in water appears bent ( when it is not) but that illusion has a physical reality. The straw appearing bent can be photographed.
Click to expand...
I’d take the opposite view. The brain is the most complicated thing in the known universe, so I think real understanding can only come from research.

As an example, Sheila Nirenberg is doing some stunning research motivated by helping the blind to see. If you look at this 2 minute video, you’ll see that the retina encodes images and sends the encoded stream into the brain, and she has been able to duplicate this encoding system in a prosthetic:

youtube.com/watch?v=GDEbsrpnntY

The brain can only perceive images in this encoded (more or less digital) form, so presumably it also remembers images in this form.

Hypothetically (I don’t know if it has been proved) when recalling an image the brain routes the memorized codes to the same destination system used for real images, and voila. So your triangle is physically encoded and qualia are not required.

Brain research is in its infancy, it’s only been a couple of decades since the first MRI scanners. Aristotle’s cosmology was orthodoxy for well over a thousand years, but was found to be well wrong. I’d say we’re currently in a similar position with the mind.
 
Are saying that it is impossible to visualize a triangle or are you saying that there is a physical triangle in your brain when you visualize a triangle?
 
inocente said:
The brain can only perceive images in this encoded (more or less digital) form, so presumably it also remembers images in this form.

.
Click to expand...
I am saying that a string of binary numerals 1100011100001111 is not the same as “seeing” a triangle. For example holding a CD of Mozart is not the same thing as hearing the music on that CD.
Would you say that pain is and only is C-fibers firing? That there is no experience (qualia) of pain?
 
I agree that brain states accompany sensations (qualia). I am familiar with the research. However, that is superfluous to the subject of qualia.
To say that the subjective does not exist, and that only objective material reality exists is to deny the evidence we experience everyday. We feel pain,joy,sadness, ecstasy etc. We do not see endorphines, C-fibers firing or see what neurons are firing.
Qualia are empirical. Brain states are implied by qualia. We experience (qualia) the blips on an EKG screen and then ask what the subject is experiencing ( his qualia). We then create a theoretical model based on the correlation.
To say that qualia do not exist is to say that empirical research is impossible.
 
The visualized triangle looks like a triangle. My neurons firing do not look like a triangle. There is no way that anyone can look into my brain (while I am visualizeing a triangle )
and see a triangle.
I have knowledge (what a triangle looks like) that is not in my brain.
If I knew everything about Einstein’s brain, but knew no physics, would I then understand relativity?
I was inspired to come up with my triangle argument by the Mary’s room argument. Google, Mary’s room qualia". I honestly believe that my version is a better version because it deals with objections better. For example,in the Mary’s room argument one can say that blue is an objective physical fact because the room is blue.However,because the triangle is visualized and not seen thru the eyes there is no objective physical reality.
 
I am using a tablet and cannot post links. Google," phenomenology of cognition “. click on the article subtitled " what is it like to think that P?”
It shows that even knowledge (for example that 2+2=4) feels like something (qualia)!
Google “symbol grounding”. * It seems to me that qualia is the only way to solve the symbol grounding problem and therefore consciousness is required for there to be meaning.
  • The wiki site is probably the best introduction to the subject.
 
The subject of knowledge and qualia may seem superfluous to life. I think it is the key to spirituality!
I was raised to be scientific and objective, that one’s inner being is meaningless. However, now qualia (consciousness ) is recognized by most academic philosophers as not only real but changes our whole perspective on reality. Even many respected physicists recognize the centrality of consciousness!! In particular the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
The arguments of the academically validated philosophers are valid and compelling.
 
Bahman said:
  1. Free will is the ability to make a decision on a given situation
  2. Free will depends on consciousness at the latest stage as without consciousness our decision would not be free
  3. From (2) we can deduce that nothing can formally cause consciousness since otherwise our decision would not be free and it is influenced by the cause
Your thought.
Click to expand...
  1. Free will is the ability to make a decision on a given situation
  2. Free will depends on the ability to experience and affect things at the latest stage as without the ability to experience and affect things our decisions would not be free
(In the above, I placed how you defined consciousness; I am not saying I agree with it as it is modified.)
  1. From (2) we can not deduce that God can not formally cause the ability to experience and affect things or free will
  2. We can, however, deduce with unaided reason that nothing has come from nothing ,therefore, the God Who Is, Is
May God Bless you and Keep you
 
wittgenstein said:
Are saying that it is impossible to visualize a triangle or are you saying that there is a physical triangle in your brain when you visualize a triangle?
Click to expand...
I don’t understand. When a picture of a triangle is transmitted to your TV, an encoding representing the image of the triangle is sent. You wouldn’t ask whether there’s a physical triangle inside the TV.

Similarly, when you see the triangle, your eyes have transmitted an encoding representing the triangle into your brain. How else could your brain get information from your eyes?
wittgenstein said:
I am saying that a string of binary numerals 1100011100001111 is not the same as “seeing” a triangle. For example holding a CD of Mozart is not the same thing as hearing the music on that CD.
Click to expand...
Sure, you need a PCM decoder to convert the CD bit stream to audio. Similarly, when you listen to the CD, your ears encode the audio and transmit the encoding into your brain.

How else could your brain get information from your ears? There has to be encoding, we don’t have an homunculus inside us listening to the music.
Would you say that pain is and only is C-fibers firing? That there is no experience (qualia) of pain?
Click to expand...
No, I’m saying that the word qualia involves making the unwarranted assumption that diverse subjective experiences such as sensing red and feeling pain are related and involve a common explanation.
 
inocente said:
I don’t understand. When a picture of a triangle is transmitted to your TV, an encoding representing the image of the triangle is sent. You wouldn’t ask whether there’s a physical triangle inside the TV.
.
Click to expand...
I agree I would never ask that and that is my point!!! There is a picture of a triangle in your mind but there is no picture of a triangle in your brain. Therefore, mind cannot = brain.
The TV analogy does not work because there isn’t a picture of a triangle in the encoded message.
 
inocente said:
Similarly, when you see the triangle, your eyes have transmitted an encoding representing the triangle into your brain. How else could your brain get information from your eyes?
Sure, you need a PCM decoder to convert the CD bit stream to audio. Similarly, when you listen to the CD, your ears encode the audio and transmit the encoding into your brain.
How else could your brain get information from your ears? There has to be encoding, we don’t have an homunculus inside us listening to the music.
QUOTE]
I have no problem with the fact that info can be transmitted electronically. What you wrote above is not related to my point.
My point is that there is no physical triangle in the persons brain ( there is no physical triangle in the data sent to the TV). There is an actual triangle in one’s mind ( that is what visualized means) ,however, there is no physical triangle in your brain. Therefore, there is information ( what a triangle looks like) that is in your mind but not in your brain. Therefore, there are qualia!
Click to expand...
 
inocente said:
No, I’m saying that the word qualia involves making the unwarranted assumption that diverse subjective experiences such as sensing red and feeling pain are related and involve a common explanation.
Click to expand...
Subjective experiences = qualia.
So you believe that the term “subjective experiences” is meaningless?
Believe it or not respected philosophers ( Dennett , Churchlands etc) actually take the eliminative materialist stance and believe that qualia do not exist. In other words you feel nothing!!! For example pain is and only is C-fibers firing. There is nothing pain feels like!!!
 
Bahman said:
  1. Free will is the ability to make a decision on a given situation
  2. Free will depends on consciousness at the latest stage as without consciousness our decision would not be free
  3. From (2) we can deduce that nothing can formally cause consciousness since otherwise our decision would not be free and it is influenced by the cause
Your thought.
Click to expand...
Life itself causes consciousness and life is given by our souls and God gives us our souls.

God Bless
Linus2nd
 
wittgenstein said:
I agree I would never ask that and that is my point!!! There is a picture of a triangle in your mind but there is no picture of a triangle in your brain. Therefore, mind cannot = brain.
The TV analogy does not work because there isn’t a picture of a triangle in the encoded message.
Click to expand...
Of course pictures are transmitted to the TV, otherwise how do you think they get there, magic? And of course there is a picture in your brain, the link in post #42 proves that.

It’s a common mistake to think your mind is a homunculus watching a TV inside your brain.
 
inocente said:
Of course pictures are transmitted to the TV, otherwise how do you think they get there, magic? And of course there is a picture in your brain, the link in post #42 proves that.

It’s a common mistake to think your mind is a homunculus watching a TV inside your brain.
Click to expand...
Yes, pictures can be TRANSMITTED, but during transmission they are not pictures. Are you saying that if one looked at the photons flying thru the wires one would see a triangle? I already said that I have no problem with the fact that information can be transmitted.
There is not a picture of a triangle in your brain, can you photograph it?
Please read
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument
Perhaps, then you will understand my argument. The “Mary’s room” argument inspired mine. However, as I said previously, my version lacks some of the problems that “Mary’s room” has.
The homunculus argument ( infinite regress) is superfluous to this argument. Either you can see a visualized triangle or you cannot. If you can then your mind has info ( what a triangle looks like) that your brain does not have.
 
wittgenstein said:
Yes, pictures can be TRANSMITTED, but during transmission they are not pictures. Are you saying that if one looked at the photons flying thru the wires one would see a triangle? I already said that I have no problem with the fact that information can be transmitted.
There is not a picture of a triangle in your brain, can you photograph it?
Please read
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument
Perhaps, then you will understand my argument. The “Mary’s room” argument inspired mine. However, as I said previously, my version lacks some of the problems that “Mary’s room” has.
The homunculus argument ( infinite regress) is superfluous to this argument. Either you can see a visualized triangle or you cannot. If you can then your mind has info ( what a triangle looks like) that your brain does not have.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how any of this follows.

To me Mary’s room is a non-argument. Of course Mary learns something when she first sees color - previously she didn’t know how her own brain would react, now she does. Ergo, the argument fails to prove anything at all, except perhaps that Señor Jackson is a bit naive.
 
inocente said:
I don’t see how any of this follows.

To me Mary’s room is a non-argument. Of course Mary learns something when she first sees color - previously she didn’t know how her own brain would react, now she does. Ergo, the argument fails to prove anything at all, except perhaps that Señor Jackson is a bit naive.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that pain does not feel like anything (it is only C-fibers firing), you cannot visualize a triangle and there is nothing red looks like (Mary’s room). I can only speak for myself, but I am certain that I can visualize a triangle. *
Are you saying that Mary does not learn what red looks like, but only learns that her brain is acting differently? I am more aware of my sensations than what my brain is doing. I can infer that my sensation,(qualia) is because the pattern of my neurons firing is different. But that is only speculation, even tho likely .To dismiss the empirical evidence (qualia, my sensations) is to dismiss the foundation of my theories.
  • An eliminative materialist ( someone that believes that qualia / subjective experience , does not exist) would say that because I cannot offer objective evidence of my subjective experience (you cannot take a photo of my visualized triangle,) it does not exist. In other words I cannot visualize a triangle.
 
There is no objective visualized triangle, it is entirely subjective. One cannot photograph it. To say that my neurons firing is a triangle is like saying that holding a CD of Mozart is the same as hearing the music. In other words obviously wrong. And that is the essence of the eliminative materialist’s “logic”.
Knowing what a triangle looks like is knowledge.
My mind can visualize a triangle.
My brain cannot. There is no triangle in my brain when my mind visualizes one.
Therefore there is knowledge in my mind that is not in my brain.
If I knew everything about Einstein’s brain ( which neurons are firing etc) would I understand Relativity? Of course not! That shows the difference between knowledge and brain states.
 
Inocente,
It is very interesting that a self proclaimed Baptist, would be an eliminative materialist. No soul, consciousness, or free will. Is Baptist different in Spain ( in contrast to USA)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top