Space Cadet Will Hutton is sadly misinformed.

[Ludwig]

Are you one of those people who claim to understand Quantum physics but can't do the Quantum Mechanics? The sort of chap who discusses the metaphysical ramifications of Shrodinger's cat but can't derive from his time-dependant equation?

The whole point of Schroedinger's thought experiment was to illustrate the paradox of QM in real-world terms rather than using equations. If your implication is correct (that ignorance of the equations precludes any kind of understanding of the concepts), why did he bother?

The Internet is full of those. QM stretches my math beyond breaking point so I generally STFU and let proper Quantum Physicists do the talking. Are you a quantum physicist? It is taught at Sussex...

I don't know the equations for the double-slit experiment, but unless every book I've read on QM has been lying to me, I understand the principles involved.

I think it was Nick Herbert (in "Quantum Reality") who wrote that the double-slit experiment is sufficient for understanding the basic ontological paradox of QM. Well, he's a quantum physicist and if it's good enough for him, I'll assume it's good enough for me.

The fact that physicists themselves disagree about the metaphysical implications of QM shows that knowing the equations is not a route to understanding the metaphysics. Any more than knowing the equations for gravity tells you what gravity is.

Something that scientists surprisingly often fail to acknowledge is that the equations are not the reality.

[UndercoverElephant]

As a mere BTW, the observation difficulties in Quantum Physics are due to the entropy of information.

You think so do you? No "in my opinion, not based on science or reason". Nope, you confidently proclaim that you already know the correct solution to "the observation difficulties in QM". The fact that there's 20+ metaphysical interpretations of of QM, none of which are falsifiable or supportable with empirical evidence, apparently makes little impact on you.

So please tell me. Which interpretation of QM is correct and, more importantly, how the hell do you think you know???

I've already stated which interpretation I tentatively go for: Henry Stapp's reworking of the Wigner version of the original Von-Neumann interpretation. I've also stated that my reasons for prefering this interpretation are due to things like ethical and aesthetic considerations, parsimony with respect to the rest of my belief system, and personal experiences. If you are anything like most of the internet expertz on QM I run into, you don't know very much about the different interpretations of QM but you think you understand the implications of QM anyway. I'll be pleasantly surprised if I am wrong about this, because this is one of my favourite topics and I'll happily discuss it until the cows come home.

Are you one of those people who claim to understand Quantum physics but can't do the Quantum Mechanics? The sort of chap who discusses the metaphysical ramifications of Shrodinger's cat but can't derive from his time-dependant equation? The Internet is full of those.

Not really, no. It is full of people who understand neither the philosophical implications of the metaphysics or the mathematics.

If you're suggesting that being able to do the actual science (the maths) behind QM enables you to judge the merits of the various metaphysical interpretations beyond being able to show that those interpretations are consistent with the mathematics then you're wrong.

QM stretches my math beyond breaking point so I generally STFU and let proper Quantum Physicists do the talking. Are you a quantum physicist? It is taught at Sussex...

No, I'm not a mathematician or a quantum physicist, and I don't need to be one of those during this debate because this is a debate about the philosophical/metaphysical ramifications of quantum theory, not quantum theory. And I did study philosophy and cognitive science at Sussex.

But nope, my BTW was based firmly on Information Theory. I do not claim to 'know', I just go for the solution that doesn't involve belief or mangled definitions of consciousness.

In other words when you proclaimed to the board that "the observer problems in QM are all down to information entropy" you were basing that claim on neither the maths behind QM, nor any knowledge of the metaphysical implications of the interpretations. i.e. you don't know what you are talking about.

[UndercoverElephant]

To all who took issue with the physical definition of consciousness: if you were a self-programming system with feedback and sensory input how would your awareness of the universe be different.

It wouldn't exist.

To twist Pascal's declaration into a question, what it is that requires more?

The thing which you can only define with a POD.

It sounds like people are extending consciousness to include quasi-religious ideas of self or soul....

Not quite, although I'm sure it looks that way from your perspective. We are just trying to make sure that the word "consciousness" isn't being used to refer to something else (i.e. brain activity). This in turn may (and may not) lead to quasi-religious ideas like self or soul but this is not being "injected" into our concept of consciousness. Put another way, rather than extending consciousness in any way we are merely making sure consciousness is not being "explained away."

, so for the purposes of clarity perhaps we should say that it is awareness of one's surroundings, self and mental processes.

That's a better definition/description, but still not adequate. For example, a car alarm or a computer might be said to have "mental processes" - there's certainly something happening inside the computer which is roughly analagous to some things happening inside a brain, and both process information coming from outside and produce outputs in response. Both are capable of interacting with their surroundings. But they aren't conscious - or at least we have no reason to believe that they are and even if they were then we'd have absolutely no way of knowing about it.

So we need a terminological difference to distinguish between the sort of awareness involved in consciousness (i.e. what it is like to be human) and the sort of interaction with environment and data processing which is carried out by computers (and there is no "what it is like to be a computer"). We can't call both of these things "awareness", because information gathering/processing/outputting is not the same thing as being consciously aware that anything at all is happening.

If we are no more than this we shall have the proof through AI research in time, though we may not yet understand the mechanisms of our own brain.

We are saying that, unless you are going to deny you are conscious, you already believe that you are more than this. Understanding brain mechanisms better may shed further light on some of these issues (e.g. discovery of specific quantum properties in the brain leading to knowledge of when in evolutionary history consciousness appeared), it is never going to be enough. The key thing we are discussing here is the relationship between those processes and consciousness, not the processes themselves. In other words, it doesn't really matter what is going on in your brain because all that will ever be is what is going on in your brain, and we are already talking about something else.

[UndercoverElephant]

Are you one of those people who claim to understand Quantum physics but can't do the Quantum Mechanics? The sort of chap who discusses the metaphysical ramifications of Shrodinger's cat but can't derive from his time-dependant equation?

The whole point of Schroedinger's thought experiment was to illustrate the paradox of QM in real-world terms rather than using equations. If your implication is correct (that ignorance of the equations precludes any kind of understanding of the concepts), why did he bother?

Or to put it another way, if understanding the mathematics is what you need to be able to understand the metaphysics then why do physics tutors tell their students to shut up and calculate when the discussion turns to the interpretations?

The fact that physicists themselves disagree about the metaphysical implications of QM shows that knowing the equations is not a route to understanding the metaphysics. Any more than knowing the equations for gravity tells you what gravity is.

Precisely.

[AndySir]

We can't call both of these things "awareness", because information gathering/processing/outputting is not the same thing as being consciously aware than anything at all is happening.

The essence of your argument, and it is nothing more than a blind assertion. What more is consciousness than information processing? You don't provide anything other than 'special thing'.

We are saying that, unless you are going to deny you are conscious, you already believe that you are more than this.

No, and try not to ascribe views to me especially when I have just stated quite clearly that I believe consciousness to be exactly that.

In other words, it doesn't really matter what is going on in your brain because all that will ever be is what is going on in your brain, and we are already talking about something else.

So the 'special thing' that is required for you to be conscious does not form part of your brain?

Taking the previous thread of the debate and this as a whole it appears that the assertion is: alternative systems of knowledge (other than the scientific method) are valid if you believe that consciousness has special properties which you can only believe if you follow an alternative system of knowledge. This appears to reduce your philosophy to a miserable tautology or an article of faith.

[UndercoverElephant]

We can't call both of these things "awareness", because information gathering/processing/outputting is not the same thing as being consciously aware than anything at all is happening.

The essence of your argument, and it is nothing more than a blind assertion. What more is consciousness than information processing? You don't provide anything other than 'special thing'.

I have already explained exactly why I can't provide anything more than "the thing which has to be defined subjectively". I did not assert that it was "special", merely that it can only be (meaningfully) defined subjectively.

Is it a blind assertion that I'm actually conscious and not a zombie? I can't think of anything which is further from a "blind assertion" than this one. What could I be more certain of than the fact that I am conscious?

We are saying that, unless you are going to deny you are conscious, you already believe that you are more than this.

No, and try not to ascribe views to me especially when I have just stated quite clearly that I believe consciousness to be exactly that.

Then, like Ludwig, I don't have a clue what you are trying to say.

The words you are saying are something like "consciousness is a self-programming neural feedback loop", but what is this actually supposed to mean?

Are you defining the word "consciousness" to refer to some process going on in your brain? If so, we need to stop talking about "consciousness" and start talking about "qualia" instead. If consciousness is this thing happening in your brain, how does consciousness relate to qualia? What are qualia and where do they come from?

In other words, it doesn't really matter what is going on in your brain because all that will ever be is what is going on in your brain, and we are already talking about something else.

So the 'special thing' that is required for you to be conscious does not form part of your brain?

I don't understand this question. Consciousness is not part of a brain. Consciousness is consciousness. It would appear to be closely related to something going on in a brain, but it is something else.

We are not asking "how is brain activity related to brain activity?" We are asking "how is brain activity related to consciousness?" Is your response "brain activity *IS* consciousness?" If so, how can something be related to something else if the first thing *IS* the second thing?? None of this makes the slightest bit of sense to me.

Taking the previous thread of the debate and this as a whole it appears that the assertion is: alternative systems of knowledge (other than the scientific method) are valid if you believe that consciousness has special properties which you can only believe if you follow an alternative system of knowledge. This appears to reduce your philosophy to a miserable tautology or an article of faith.

If you accept a subjective definition of consciousness (a private ostensive definition) then you already believe that alternative systems of knowledge (other than the scientific method) are possible.

The crucial question I need you to answer is this: Is it possible for the word "consciousness" to acquire meaning via a private ostensive definition? I can't use science or reason to compel you to answer this question in any particular way, but I can demonstrate a logical problem in your position if you freely choose to answer in a particular way. This would not be tautological or faith-based. It would be philosophy doing what philosophy is supposed to do.

[Ludwig]

We can't call both of these things "awareness", because information gathering/processing/outputting is not the same thing as being consciously aware than anything at all is happening.

The essence of your argument, and it is nothing more than a blind assertion.

So your (presumable) counterstatement that

"information gathering/processing/outputting is the same thing as being consciously aware"

is not a blind assertion?

What more is consciousness than information processing? You don't provide anything other than 'special thing'.

Do you even know the meaning of "awareness"?

Can you really not see that an entity that performs a calcuation is different from an entity that performs a calculation and knows that it is performing a calculation?

[UndercoverElephant]

We can't call both of these things "awareness", because information gathering/processing/outputting is not the same thing as being consciously aware than anything at all is happening.

The essence of your argument, and it is nothing more than a blind assertion.

So your (presumable) counterstatement that

"information gathering/processing/outputting is the same thing as being consciously aware"

is not a blind assertion?

It's not even a blind assertion. From my perspective, it's just nonsense. I don't even know what it is supposed to mean. It's a bit like saying that bananas are the same thing as a feeling of impending doom. Then when you query this, the response comes back "What more is there to a feeling of impending doom than a bunch of bananas? What is this "special thing" that's any more than a bunch of bananas? Why can't the feeling of impending doom just *be* the bananas?"

I mean...eh??

[PS_RalphW]

My opinion based on the evidence I have read is that consciousness is an illusion. It does not exist. there is no 'I'.

What we (taking the approximate proximity of elementary particles that refers to itself as human ) mistake for consciousness is narrative thread. Our brains are melting pots for ideas that share processing space in the neural net of our brains, those ideas that get positive feedback from sensory inputs, memories, etc. gain strength and eventually (in milliseconds) one or more becomes strong enough to come to the attention of the narrative thread we call consciousness, or to trigger external action or reaction to our environment. I think it is has been demonstrated by brain imaging that actions like pressing a button are activated before the 'decision' to press the button gets added to our 'consciousness'. Background monitoring processes then gives us an ability to reflect on past actions, review our memories, and bring in an executive function to say 'good idea' or 'bad idea' based on the outcome of the actions taken.
Without a story line to hang our ideas off, we would be lost - unable to retrieve memories in a temporal order. We would still have associative memories, though.

We need to learn a bit more humility.

Descartes said 'I think therefore I am". RalphW says "I know I don't exist".

[Ludwig]

My opinion based on the evidence I have read is that consciousness is an illusion. It does not exist. there is no 'I'.

Consciousness cannot be an illusion, because an illusion is something that is experienced, and something experienced requires a conscious entity to do the experiencing.

That is precisely the point that Descartes was making.

Any particular input to consciousness may be an illusion, but consciousness itself cannot possibly be. Quite the opposite to what you are saying, one's own consciousness is the only thing one can be sure exists.

Descartes said 'I think therefore I am". RalphW says "I know I don't exist".

Then with respect Ralph, you have misunderstood Descartes.

[AndySir]

UE - Failure to understand is not an argument. I have defined several times what I consider to be consciousness, as yet you have not and claim it cannot be defined. It is something which you feel, presumably like God' love.

Trying to sum up UE's arguments about consciousness we know:
1. That it is nothing to do with the brain or mental processes.
2. That it is distinct from your experience of the world.
3. That it consciousness is consciousness (helpful)

This made me laugh - it ties logic in a knot

We are asking "how is brain activity related to consciousness?" Is your response "brain activity *IS* consciousness?" If so, how can something be related to something else if the first thing *IS* the second thing?? None of this makes the slightest bit of sense to me.

How can apples be related to apples if apples ARE apples? I don't get it!

You final question is meaningless - wordplay again. If you can demonstrate a problem in either position feel free to do so. I don't play spoonfeeding games.

[PS_RalphW]

Then with respect Ralph, you have misunderstood Descartes.

I think we must agree to disagree. On the internet all posters are equal.

My opinion is that we are so deeply entangled in this brain of ours, we find it hard to see it for what it really is. A red pill/blue pill moment.

We have evolved to survive, not to see ourselves as we really are.

[UndercoverElephant]

UE - Failure to understand is not an argument.

That is correct.

I have defined several times what I consider to be consciousness, as yet you have not and claim it cannot be defined.

You aren't actually responding to what I'm posting or answering my questions, Andy. I have provided a very detailed argument explaining precisely what is wrong with your "definition of consciousness". You have not responded to that argument. You have ignored it.

It is something which you feel, presumably like God' love.

Trying to sum up UE's arguments about consciousness we know:
1. That it is nothing to do with the brain or mental processes.
2. That it is distinct from your experience of the world.
3. That it consciousness is consciousness (helpful)

Where did you get that from? Have you been reading somebody-else's posts? Because this is not remotely what I have said. Where did I say that consciousness has nothing to do with the brain?

This is what I actually wrote on the subject:

Consciousness is not part of a brain. Consciousness is consciousness. It would appear to be closely related to something going on in a brain, but it is something else.

This made me laugh - it ties logic in a knot

We are asking "how is brain activity related to consciousness?" Is your response "brain activity *IS* consciousness?" If so, how can something be related to something else if the first thing *IS* the second thing?? None of this makes the slightest bit of sense to me.

How can apples be related to apples if apples ARE apples? I don't get it!

You final question is meaningless - wordplay again. If you can demonstrate a problem in either position feel free to do so. I don't play spoonfeeding games.

It is not me who is engaged in meaningless wordplay. It is YOU, Andy.

You are, so far, behaving precisely like a brainwashed Dawkinsian ought to be expected to behave. You are not responding to what I'm actually saying. Instead, you are providing strawman "summaries" of what I've posted, which bear no resemblance to the real thing, and then knocking them down.

Do you or do you not accept that a private ostensive definition of consciousness is possible?

***NB*** Repeating your own "definition" of consciousness is not what you have just been asked to do. Providing a garbled strawman misintepretation of my position is not what you have been asked to do. Please try to answer the actual question I have asked you.

[UndercoverElephant]

We have evolved to survive, not to see ourselves as we really are.

Well, there's no denying that claim. Self-delusion is certainly a critical psychological survival strategy for most humans.

[UndercoverElephant]

I also do not buy your suggestion that physicalism is incompatible with consciousness. Consciousness could adequately be described as a self-programming feedback system the basic principles of which are broadly understood. It requires no elements beyond the physical to make me me, it simply requires that I accept that I have no essence beyond my physical form.

No, or at least no one's come up with a convincing argument for that. It might explain the external signs of consciousness in others (how they might behave if they saw red, heard a minor chord, or felt itchy), but it doesn't explain the internal symptoms (what it's like to see red, hear a minor chord, or feel itchy).

Exactly.