Originally posted by Cris
Canute,
Consciousness is interwoven with ‘ordinary’ human experience. How can you separate them?
That's a very good question. The trouble is that only you can answer it. I don't mean to be glib, but it's just logically inevitable. Only you can know what states of consciousness are possible.
It is the experience of most people, probably all, that consciousness can be experienced in non-ordinary states. These states therefore exist. In other words it is possible to be in such a state and still be conscious.
Skilled practitioners of meditation, and some stoned crazies, routinely claim to be able to achieve the fundamental states that underlie, or serve as the foundation for, our ordinary states of experience.
They may be making this up. However every practioner or mystic who has written about such states, from whatever religion, culture or background they have come, has agreed, and still do agree with each other completely in their descriptions of these states, and their importance.
This suggests that it is at least possible at least to see beyond the ordinary human state of consciousness.
But if the philosopher says that something is impossible when the effect clearly exists indicates a disconnect that leads me to find such philosophical views irrelevant to discovering a real solution.
In general philosphers are not saying that consciousness doesn't exist, or that it cannot be explained. They are just saying that science can't explain it because of the way that science defines itself.
OK but these are the facts as I see them. The facts –
1. Consciousness is an identified mental phenomenon.
2. We don’t know how the brain generates consciousness.
3. We don’t yet know how to solve the problem of how the brain generates consciousness.
4. We need more information about how the brain operates to help with (2) and (3).
Your problem is number 2. We do not know IF brain generates consciousness, and there are logical reasons that so far prevent us from proving even that it can, even in principle.
So let’s go with (4), continue to hypothesize, and iterate. This is practical problem solving.
That's not my idea of being practical. It would be my idea of wasting a whole load of time and money.
Perhaps because I am not a pure scientist but a practical technologist that I find the issue we are discussing somewhat futile. There is a clearly defined source and an effect and hence a problem to be solved. I really do not see any issues other than collecting more pieces of the puzzle and putting them together.
Well, I see it as the most important issue in the cosmos but there you go.
There is no conceivable scientific evidence that would solve the issue. This is the problem, and more pieces will only make the problem more puzzling.
On the basis of what we know we have to do exactly what you suggest, put the pieces of the puzzle together. But we have to do this for ourselves, for logical reasons science is unable to do it.
If the argument is about that science must adapt to accommodate new concepts then fine, but science is about the discovery and establishment of knowledge, and it has no limitations.
It has frightening limitations. That's why it can't explain consciousness. Science is about the discovery of scientific knowledge based on scientific hypotheses derived only from the scientific evidence, where 'scientific' is defined as science defines it. It's rubbish at discovering any other kind of knowledge.
And this is where I see the objections as trying to impose artificial limitations on how science does, or can, or should operate.
Nobody is doing that. Philsophers look at the definition of science, as agreed by scientists, and then inform scientists of the consequences of that defintion for its attempts to explain consciousness. It's no more than the application of common sense really.
I don’t think the analogy works. The argument here is an objection to another philosophical claim that every effect must have a cause. The issue of consciousness seems to be more about the method of finding a solution where the source and effect are defined.
My point was that you can't ignore basic logical objections to theories on the grounds that you need more evidence. Also, in this case the source and the effect are not defined. That's also part of the problem.
Well thankyou. But I’m not claiming a solution just that I think it is very premature to claim that we won’t be able to find one.
I don't think that it's premature, since all the evidence is available, but I think it'll be a while before there is a sufficiently widespread understanding of that evidence for the scientific view to change. However I believe it will.
Men dreamed of visiting the moon for centuries but had no idea how to achieve it. The final solution wasn’t so difficult. I have little doubt we will resolve the consciousness issue eventually – that’s the nature of human creativity and ingenuity.
There was no in principle reason why we should not fly to the moon. Explaining consciousness is a lot harder than that.
My point was that I didn’t have an hypothesis and simply that we do not have enough information to form an hypothesis.
You always hypothesise that consciousness arises from brain. The problem opens up a bit if you don't automatically make that assumption.
And this I took to mean that this implies that ‘magic’ must happen if the source isn’t the brain.
It may seem like that, but this is to take a narrow view. If consciousness has a non-scientific explanation it does not follow that magic is involved.
And this is where given the perspective of the immense power of the brain that I find it inconceivable that the brain is not the source. And I do not see any credible alternative being offered that is not significantly far more illogical.
But you'd have to admit that you haven't examined the alternatives or studied their logic.
It is not meaningful to make this claim since as you state we do not yet know how consciousness is generated. When we solve the problem then we could evaluate the claim.
Surprisingly my claim was irrefutable and uncontentious. It is not disputed by anyone who has looked at the problem.
Perhaps I am missing something, but if there is no effective difference then what is the problem?
If zombies can exist then it follows that consciousness exists but is immaterial. (Takes a bit of working out but it's inevitable). This puts science in a tricky position.
On the other hand if consciousness is epiphenomenal and non-causal then zombies can exists, because consciousness does not affect behaviour.
Take your pick. Logic suggests that neither view is right.
I think that claim is premature. We do not know our future capabilities.
Some questions are undecidable, as we know from mathematics and logic. They cannot be decided even in eternity. Most netaphysical questions fall into this category. We therefore know some of the limits of science. At some point we have to transcend science.
(Btw. I'm not trying to beat you into submission. Just trying to point out that consciousness is not just another passing problem. Science has never faced one like it before. In fact there isn't another one like it.)
Cheers
Canute