The Existence of Consciousness...?

[september]

Seeing Steve's take on the importance of consciousness, as well as several different topics in this forum related to its implications, I thought I'd bring up the philosophically interesting question of the moment (or rather, past few decades) in a specific branch of philosophy: Philosophy of the Mind.

This question is: well, does consciousness even exist? If so, how does it (or does it?) interact meaningfully with the body? This is often referred to as the "mind-body problem" in philosophy, and it gives everyone in the field a heck of a time trying to assert anything - after all, we are working from within the framework of a first-person subjective experience, and there is no way of escaping it.

A good source to acquaint or refresh yourself on this material can be found at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_the_mind
(I know, generally not to be trusted - however, philosophers seem to be nerdy enough that spammers won't even tamper with these articles.)

There are two camps: dualism and monism. Dualism holds that there is an immaterial mind that is a separate entity from the body - i.e. consciousness. Within dualism, there are sub-camps: substance and property dualism. Property dualism claims that the mind consists of emergent properties of the brain, but that the resulting matrix will not reduce back to these individual properties. Substance dualism, or interactionism, simply holds that the immaterial mind (henceforth "mind") is independent from the physical brain. A third, smaller camp, epiphenomenalism, holds that the mind or consciousness exists - but is causally impotent as far as the physical body is concerned. That is, emergent properties create the mind, but the mind has no causal effect on the body - rather, it receives effects from the body, such as the subjective feeling of pain. (Parallelism and occasionalism can also be put under dualism, but are generally more religious arguments. If you feel the occasion to bring them into the discussion, by all means - details on them can be found in the wiki entry.)

Monism, or physicalism, or materialism, on the other hand, holds that there are only physical properties - there is only a brain, no mind. From here, we get into sub-camps like the mostly defunct (as a serious, competitive theory) behavorialism, functionalism and the like, but that's not so important for our discussion purposes. They may arise later on.

I'd like to start the dialogue by trying to pinpoint where a theory of consciousness like Steve's or any of ours might stand, and then perhaps evaluate it from the point of view of the philosophical community at-large.

The idea of having a consciousness certainly places us in dualism territory, does it not? Many here believe in souls and an afterlife - this certainly implies an active consciousness or mind with the ability to affect the physical body. This would rule out the common property dualism standpoint, as well as epiphenomenalism, and leave us with substance dualism, the conclusion that Descartes came to, but admittedly, not one that holds up too readily in philosophical debate today.

Admittedly, I've held to epiphenomenalism myself, in light of neurobiological studies (can't find now, I assure you that I will try later) that show that a conscious decision to do something lags behind the neural firings actually beginning to do said action by something like 400 milliseconds. No matter how small the time... it's still lagging. Thus, it would seem that one's consciousness, one's first-person subjective experience is simply a happy accident of evolution, causally inefficacious on its environs.

I can't wait to see what everyone else has to say.

[skrowzdm]

I'm not sure if there is a way to offer proof for the existence of consciousness; it might be easier to prove that the opposite of it isn't true. I saw a movie called "What the Bleep Do We Know?" (they have an extended edition that I highly reccomend buying - it's roughly five hours long and has much more than the original) - in this movie I remember them mentioning a theory that states something to the effect of : you can't have a universe without consciousness entering in to it. [I can't remember who it was that said this (I'll have to check and get back to you).] This sounds reasonable to me, it would be a very convienent way of creating a universe; and it seems to be congruent with the LoA (insofaras having a connection between consciousness and being - or even if consciousness is a tangible part of being). For my part, the only certainty that I have on the subject of consciousness is that at least part of its nature (or part of its being or essence, etc.) must be to search for it, because there's a lot of that going on down here on earth. Happy journey.

[Nelson]

Logical proof that consciousness is eternal « The Search for Magic

[Scipio]

I didn't bother reading any of your post, but my area of study is philosophy so I'll give you the reason why I know I have consciousness: It is directly observable to me via introspection. Any denial of consciousness would also necessitate a use of consciousness. For example, "I don't have consciousness" requires that "I" contradict myself. Therefore, consciousness is axiomatic. All knowledge as such requires the precondition that I am a conscious entity focussing my awareness on something.

Acceptance of consciousness does not necessarily implicate any type of mystical dualism.

[Scipio]

Originally Posted by september

A third, smaller camp, epiphenomenalism, holds that the mind or consciousness exists - but is causally impotent as far as the physical body is concerned. That is, emergent properties create the mind, but the mind has no causal effect on the body - rather, it receives effects from the body, such as the subjective feeling of pain.

Admittedly, I've held to epiphenomenalism myself

I'm not familiar with your camp, but I am assuming here you are a determinist. How would you say you typed your post? According to your theory, you didn't decide in your mind to tell your fingers to type on the keyboard. Your fingers typed and then told you about it later. So, would you say antecedent factors caused you to type that post, and you had no free will or option about it at all?

[september]

Scipio (1st post): Right, anyone can know for certain that they are conscious... Descartes points this out. Simply doubting that one may exist enunciates that a thought exists and that there must be a thinker for the thought. The title of the thread might have been slightly misleading because that was only the first question, and I suppose I was looking more for a constructive dialogue on the other question(s). I know that I exist, in the first-person sense, although I can't rule out the possibility of everyone else being philosophical zombies. And certainly, consciousness itself doesn't imply dualism. It's the other question where dualism tends to get into some trouble ("If so, how does it (or does it?) interact meaningfully with the body?"). That's the hard question - literally.

This stuff most often comes up with AI - what necessitates consciousness? Is it a strictly human phenomenon? What is it contributing to our existence that an extremely complicated algorithm couldn't? Turing, one of the founders of our modern digital computers, has much to say about how we can't be sure computers couldn't be conscious someday, simply because in a sense, we are computers - just human ones. John Searle practically decimated research funding into AI with his Chinese Room Argument, basically saying that one can process information and still not understand it - however, this argument is filled with holes...

Anyway, that's more what I wanted to get at, I guess.

Scipio (2nd post): I lean soft determinist (compatibilism) for the time being, but I could be pushed either way. I actually try to stay agnostic on issues for as long as I can and just rely on intuition, because generally, I'm already doing what's best for me right now, and I won't replace components of my systems of belief until I think they're generally better than what I've got.

But yes, definitely determinist. I think that it manifests itself both on the macro and micro levels - if a person drinks some water, there's a reason for it - they were thirsty, or they like the taste of water, or something else, or a combination of reasons, which leads to overdetermination, but that's a different story... and of course, before you perform any action, the chemicals in your brain have to have the right reactions, and the neurons in your brain have to fire the right way. So definitely - things that happen have causes.

What you seem to be doing is confusing the physical body (of which my brain is a part) and the immaterial mind, which I clarified earlier was referring to consciousness - also referred to as the soul, spirit, etc. It's the first-person subjective experience.

Therefore, of course the brain has causal power. But the mind is a different story in the context in which I'm using the word. I apologize for possibly being confusing, philosophy of the mind generally refers to it as the "mind-body problem" and I followed suit.

[september]

Nelson: Hmm... this article, while convincing, prima facie, doesn't seem to allow for the possibility that consciousness might be comprised of a set of emergent properties of the brain that are contingent upon the brain's complexities remaining active. In plainer terms (I'm not trying to sound uber-technical, I swear, it's just hard not to use philosophical terms when talking about this after a while), consciousness might be sort of a waste product or excess produced by the complexities of the brain - an after-image or after-taste, if you will.

Just playing devil's advocate.

[jdiddy]

Originally Posted by september

Seeing Steve's take on the importance of consciousness, as well as several different topics in this forum related to its implications, I thought I'd bring up the philosophically interesting question of the moment (or rather, past few decades) in a specific branch of philosophy: Philosophy of the Mind.

This question is: well, does consciousness even exist? If so, how does it (or does it?) interact meaningfully with the body? This is often referred to as the "mind-body problem" in philosophy, and it gives everyone in the field a heck of a time trying to assert anything - after all, we are working from within the framework of a first-person subjective experience, and there is no way of escaping it.

A good source to acquaint or refresh yourself on this material can be found at Wikipedia: Philosophy of mind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(I know, generally not to be trusted - however, philosophers seem to be nerdy enough that spammers won't even tamper with these articles.)

There are two camps: dualism and monism. Dualism holds that there is an immaterial mind that is a separate entity from the body - i.e. consciousness. Within dualism, there are sub-camps: substance and property dualism. Property dualism claims that the mind consists of emergent properties of the brain, but that the resulting matrix will not reduce back to these individual properties. Substance dualism, or interactionism, simply holds that the immaterial mind (henceforth "mind") is independent from the physical brain. A third, smaller camp, epiphenomenalism, holds that the mind or consciousness exists - but is causally impotent as far as the physical body is concerned. That is, emergent properties create the mind, but the mind has no causal effect on the body - rather, it receives effects from the body, such as the subjective feeling of pain. (Parallelism and occasionalism can also be put under dualism, but are generally more religious arguments. If you feel the occasion to bring them into the discussion, by all means - details on them can be found in the wiki entry.)

Monism, or physicalism, or materialism, on the other hand, holds that there are only physical properties - there is only a brain, no mind. From here, we get into sub-camps like the mostly defunct (as a serious, competitive theory) behavorialism, functionalism and the like, but that's not so important for our discussion purposes. They may arise later on.

I'd like to start the dialogue by trying to pinpoint where a theory of consciousness like Steve's or any of ours might stand, and then perhaps evaluate it from the point of view of the philosophical community at-large.

The idea of having a consciousness certainly places us in dualism territory, does it not? Many here believe in souls and an afterlife - this certainly implies an active consciousness or mind with the ability to affect the physical body. This would rule out the common property dualism standpoint, as well as epiphenomenalism, and leave us with substance dualism, the conclusion that Descartes came to, but admittedly, not one that holds up too readily in philosophical debate today.

Admittedly, I've held to epiphenomenalism myself, in light of neurobiological studies (can't find now, I assure you that I will try later) that show that a conscious decision to do something lags behind the neural firings actually beginning to do said action by something like 400 milliseconds. No matter how small the time... it's still lagging. Thus, it would seem that one's consciousness, one's first-person subjective experience is simply a happy accident of evolution, causally inefficacious on its environs.

I can't wait to see what everyone else has to say.

Aside from the Descartes argument, you might also look at quantum physics which has proven that just the act of conciously observing systems *physically* changes them. This alone should prove that something besides chemicals and molecules powers our conciousnesses, something that's intertwined with reality on a much more integral level. Also a very strong argument for the validity of the theory of intention/manifestation IMO.

[september]

Originally Posted by jdiddy

Aside from the Descartes argument, you might also look at quantum physics which has proven that just the act of conciously observing systems *physically* changes them. This alone should prove that something besides chemicals and molecules powers our conciousnesses, something that's intertwined with reality on a much more integral level. Also a very strong argument for the validity of the theory of intention/manifestation IMO.

This is a common misconception. Einstein proved that you can measure a quantum particle's position without disturbing its momentum by measuring it through one of its entangled particles. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle just means that everything (quantum and all else) can no longer be described accurately as a classic particle or wave, but rather, something with wave-particle duality, much like we've discovered light can be found in wave and particle form.

Plus, it's not as if scientists didn't know where the particles were going to end up. The discrepency was calculated based on a probability distribution from which Heisenberg calculated the standard deviation.

However! I'm not trying to argue for or against intention/manifestation. I just wanted to compare philosophical theories of mind to Steve's system, and see what happened. Always searchin' for the truth.

[Scipio]

Originally Posted by september

It's the other question where dualism tends to get into some trouble ("If so, how does it (or does it?) interact meaningfully with the body?"). That's the hard question - literally.

Not a philosophical question in my opinion; it's one for science to answer eventually. I reject the usual false dichotomy that says the body is real and the mind is supernatural--consciousness, even if not material, is not supernatural. Consciousness is an entity that exists, and as such, even if it is not material, it is a natural phenomenon. The philosophical question here is "Do I have volitional control of myself?" and the answer is a resounding yes--it's axiomatic.

We will eventually find out the scientific explanation, but not as long as the scientists are determinists who reject volition.

This stuff most often comes up with AI - what necessitates consciousness? Is it a strictly human phenomenon? What is it contributing to our existence that an extremely complicated algorithm couldn't? Turing, one of the founders of our modern digital computers, has much to say about how we can't be sure computers couldn't be conscious someday, simply because in a sense, we are computers - just human ones. John Searle practically decimated research funding into AI with his Chinese Room Argument, basically saying that one can process information and still not understand it - however, this argument is filled with holes...

Do you have any key terms that relate AI to philosophy that I can learn about? To be honest, I'm much more familiar with the older questions of Western philosophy and not really up on AI.

[september]

Originally Posted by Scipio

Not a philosophical question in my opinion; it's one for science to answer eventually. I reject the usual false dichotomy that says the body is real and the mind is supernatural--consciousness, even if not material, is not supernatural. Consciousness is an entity that exists, and as such, even if it is not material, it is a natural phenomenon.

However, one cannot prove with certainly that consciousness is not supernatural. That's why it remains a question, especially with many theist philosophers out there. Simply because you think it's true doesn't prove it to everyone who believes otherwise. There needs to be some evidence present to differentiate the cases for a natural and supernatural consciousness.

Originally Posted by Scipio

Do you have any key terms that relate AI to philosophy that I can learn about? To be honest, I'm much more familiar with the older questions of Western philosophy and not really up on AI.

I'd recommend just reading the wiki article on the Chinese room argument - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
Any other questions you have will probably be linked in the article. It's not so long and it's worth understanding.

[Nelson]

september, I like the way you think

[september]

Originally Posted by Nelson

september, I like the way you think

Thanks! I appreciate it. Any reason in particular?