|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 24, 2021 11:13:32 GMT
Language, in which our brain associates certain words with objects or ideas. Note the conceptual aspect with language too: a string of text doesn't really any objective (as in something that's innate to the text itself) information without the mental association of that text with its referents. I can see you are not willing to entertain any ideas outside of boring old science so, I nothing left for me to say here. Fun talk though.  I have no idea what makes you think that. I regularly read philosophy that isn't strictly scientific, and my last post was more philosophy than science anyway about the nature of language and how/why it's "information."
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 24, 2021 19:37:44 GMT
Your second paragraph is a subject of some controversy among those in the philosophy of mind sphere (including scientists): is it merely the structure and functions of the mental network that produces consciousness, or does the material components contribute something to that? I'm very agnostic on this issue. I'm inclined to think that it could be a bit of both, that there are some aspects of consciousness produced by the structure and functioning of the brain, but perhaps the material nature of those structures contribute something to the "qualia" of how it feels. Not sure the radio analogy is a good one since what we're hearing are the actual acoustic waves being produced, and both transistors and tubes can power the amplifier that produces them; can different materials arranged in the same network produce the same experience of consciousness? My guess is that it would probably be similar, or at least be something, but I'm not sure what and how similar. I'm thinking that consciousness arises out of information processing and the detailed properties of the material the processor is made from don't matter. I don't have any evidence for this, but perhaps Occam's Razor might side with this. We can be pretty sure that consciousness ceases when a brain's functioning ceases, therefore having the brain operate is at least one component of consciousness. It's possible that specific material properties matter too, but to me that seems like a sort of dualism and more complicated than the pure information processing stance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 24, 2021 21:35:06 GMT
Your second paragraph is a subject of some controversy among those in the philosophy of mind sphere (including scientists): is it merely the structure and functions of the mental network that produces consciousness, or does the material components contribute something to that? I'm very agnostic on this issue. I'm inclined to think that it could be a bit of both, that there are some aspects of consciousness produced by the structure and functioning of the brain, but perhaps the material nature of those structures contribute something to the "qualia" of how it feels. Not sure the radio analogy is a good one since what we're hearing are the actual acoustic waves being produced, and both transistors and tubes can power the amplifier that produces them; can different materials arranged in the same network produce the same experience of consciousness? My guess is that it would probably be similar, or at least be something, but I'm not sure what and how similar. I'm thinking that consciousness arises out of information processing and the detailed properties of the material the processor is made from don't matter. I don't have any evidence for this, but perhaps Occam's Razor might side with this. We can be pretty sure that consciousness ceases when a brain's functioning ceases, therefore having the brain operate is at least one component of consciousness. It's possible that specific material properties matter too, but to me that seems like a sort of dualism and more complicated than the pure information processing stance. It's one subject where I find it difficult to mount a strong argument either way. I do think there's something to the "hard problem of consciousness" that I'm not convinced (yet) that the "processor" approach to consciousness solves, but I'm equally unsure if that's just my lack of imagination/understanding or not. I do think the arrangement and type of processing has to matter a great deal, but whether it can wholly explain all of consciousness is a trickier hypothesis. Occam's Razor is also a tough thing to apply to it, especially when consciousness is such a subjective/first-hand type of thing. Maybe the only way we could ever know is if we had a human subject whom we were able to replace parts of their brain with synthetic parts and then could ask whether their experience before and after were any different. Though the caveats there would be that it would have to be some part of the brain that we'd think would have something to do with our conscious experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 24, 2021 21:50:01 GMT
I have no idea what makes you think that. I regularly read philosophy that isn't strictly scientific, and my last post was more philosophy than science anyway about the nature of language and how/why it's "information." Every suggestion for just entertaining fun mind expansion you resist. No one likes a wet blanket thrown on everything. I don't know what you mean by "resist." I'm happy to entertain (discuss and ponder) many hypotheses but still insist on evidence before I take them too seriously. That's just being a good skeptic, as everyone should be.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 24, 2021 22:18:47 GMT
Language, in which our brain associates certain words with objects or ideas. Note the conceptual aspect with language too: a string of text doesn't really any objective (as in something that's innate to the text itself) information without the mental association of that text with its referents. I can see you are not willing to entertain any ideas outside of boring old science so, I nothing left for me to say here. Fun talk though. What else is there? IF you reply things like imagination, philosophy, spirituality etc etc etc.....you STILL require a functioning human brain to even have the concept of those things and that, it would seem, is 'boring old sciencey'.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 24, 2021 22:36:35 GMT
What else is there? IF you reply things like imagination, philosophy, spirituality etc etc etc.....you STILL require a functioning human brain to even have the concept of those things and that, it would seem, is 'boring old sciencey'. I'm not saying a functioning human brain does not DO imagination, philosophy, spirituality etc etc etc. Why does the human brain do imagination, philosophy, spirituality etc etc etc. when remainder of life on the planet is incapable of it. ...advanced evolution?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 24, 2021 22:59:13 GMT
And since again self-aware intelligence is not necessary for abundant and successful life, what caused the universe to produce sentient beings who ponder the nature of the universe? I think you have it arse about. There is no 'intent' in evolution. It is a natural and ongoing process. ie this is the natural result of an advanced evolution as I previously stated.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 24, 2021 23:06:51 GMT
I think you have it arse about. There is no 'intent' in evolution. It is a natural and ongoing process. ie this is the natural result of an advanced evolution as I previously stated. I'm not talking about intent but cause. What 'caused' what? and I just answered 'evolution'.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 24, 2021 23:12:55 GMT
What 'caused' what? and I just answered 'evolution'. Okay, now you're being an annoying. Good-night. WTF is annoying about this? What more do you want? These are facts...so you want me to make up conspiracy thories about human consciousness like the religious do? White light at the end of the dying tunnel etc?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 24, 2021 23:42:03 GMT
WTF is annoying about this? What more do you want? These are facts...so you want me to make up conspiracy thories about human consciousness like the religious do? White light at the end of the dying tunnel etc? That you think I'm taking about conspiracy theories is a problem. I am talking far, far from that. I'm simply fielding questions that freaking Einstein himself pondered, not do a Nobel worthy science experiment. However, continue to be a stick in the mud. OK. This was your answeer to me when we were intially discussion this. What do you mean in the bolded phrase, and in the next sentence what are you referring to exactly? You sound like you are talking about an exterior trancendant 'something' that is exterior to each individual 'brain and consciousness'. Is this what you mean? Please explain. At the moment it is sounding like the Christian (amongst otheres) concept of a soul, that is eternal and existing outside of a body(brain).
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 25, 2021 1:48:29 GMT
What else is there? IF you reply things like imagination, philosophy, spirituality etc etc etc.....you STILL require a functioning human brain to even have the concept of those things and that, it would seem, is 'boring old sciencey'. I'm not saying a functioning human brain does not DO imagination, philosophy, spirituality etc etc etc. Why does the human brain do imagination, philosophy, spirituality etc etc etc. when remainder of life on the planet is incapable of it. I'm not convinced remainder of life on the planet is incapable of such things; they may just not exhibit the same signs as we do. EG, written language has a been a huge factor in preserving humanity's imagination, philosophy, and spirituality, but it doesn't mean that no humans imagined, philosophized, or were "spiritual" before written language, or even before language itself. I think many animals may have very primitive forms of these things, and highly intelligent animals like dolphins may even have them at or near the same levels as humans. I think it's too presumptuous to assume we're alone in having those capabilities, though it's more reasonable to think we're able to take them farther due to our greater intelligence and abilities to record them via written language. Also, as to why evolution might select for these things I think there could be several different explanations. If we take imagination, imagination is basically an extension of our desire to create an internal "map" of how reality is and functions. The act of imagining is probably rewarding because of this, and so we find imagination fun even when we're NOT trying to use it to accurately map reality. It's similar to why humans appreciate music: our brains reward pattern recognition, and music is all about creating recognizable patterns of sound, which we delight in finding. It's not hard to see how many such pleasurable activities are extensions of evolutionary useful mechanisms.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 25, 2021 2:17:36 GMT
I'm not convinced remainder of life on the planet is incapable of such things; they may just not exhibit the same signs as we do. EG, written language has a been a huge factor in preserving humanity's imagination, philosophy, and spirituality, but it doesn't mean that no humans imagined, philosophized, or were "spiritual" before written language, or even before language itself. I think many animals may have very primitive forms of these things, and highly intelligent animals like dolphins may even have them at or near the same levels as humans. I think it's too presumptuous to assume we're alone in having those capabilities, though it's more reasonable to think we're able to take them farther due to our greater intelligence and abilities to record them via written language. Also, as to why evolution might select for these things I think there could be several different explanations. If we take imagination, imagination is basically an extension of our desire to create an internal "map" of how reality is and functions. The act of imagining is probably rewarding because of this, and so we find imagination fun even when we're NOT trying to use it to accurately map reality. It's similar to why humans appreciate music: our brains reward pattern recognition, and music is all about creating recognizable patterns of sound, which we delight in finding. It's not hard to see how many such pleasurable activities are extensions of evolutionary useful mechanisms. True, animal intelligence is more complex than human's have thought, however I don't know if any of them are self-aware. I think chimps might be since they can recognize themselves in mirrors, even so, do they desire to know anything about the universe other than how to survive? I remember even as a young kid (like 4-5 years old) sitting around and thinking whether I could make myself think a thought without some force (my brain or whatever) making me think that thought, so I'd try to think of really random things to fool whatever it was that was making me think things. Now, I'm pretty sure there are plenty of primates that are as smart as a 4-year-old, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if they get to wondering about the nature of thought and experience and nature, even if they don't have the language to describe what they're doing. I bet a lot of species when not caught up in the daily rigors of survival might get to thinking about stuff like that.
|
|
