Could consciousness, an emergent property not caused by a single brain, be described as being complex?
Stop making circular references. Can’t you tell that I don’t think the concept of conciousness is very valuable to this discussion? If you have something to say, spell it out. I’m far more interested in the perspective offered by others than your nonsense.
The human brain an object not caused by a single universe.
Actually, there is a mild resemblance to a human brain…
(Never gonna eat chicken again…)
How do you figure
The human brain is that which only controls “my mental faculties, and not yours and everyone else’s”.
Did someone discover another universe and not tell anyone?
Do I have to babysit your argument for you? How does “The human brain an object not caused by a single universe” follow from the above statement?
Kozmik’s argument (That which only controls “my mental faculties, and not yours and everyone else’s” is not caused by a single universe.) is derived from Kozmik’s claim (While it is true that emergent properties such as consciousness are not phenomena caused by a single brain, they are as “real” as the earth, the solar system, the galaxy and the universe, and similarly complicated in terms of causes, symptoms and understanding.) and Kozmik’s claim is derived from Tamara Lipshie’s claim (While it is true that illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are not infectious diseases caused by a single pathogen, they are as “real” as hypertension and diabetes, and similarly complicated in terms of causes, symptoms and treatment.) which is in response to Gary Greenberg’s statement (The human brain, after all, may be the most complex object in the universe.) which forms the basis of the question in the OP (Is the human brain the most complex object in the universe?), the answer to which, I argue, is “No.”.
Is that clear or do I have to explain it to you?
This is perhaps the first instance of ‘cargo cult philosophy’ that I’ve ever seen…
Good call
This is a good question. In order to answer the question in the OP, we must answer Jragon’s question.
Tripolar thinks that consciousness is a poorly formed concept that is not very valuable to answering the question in the OP. I was offended when Tripolar wrote “I’m far more interested in the perspective offered by others than your nonsense.” So, Jragon, I’m far more interested in your perspective than the contributions offered so far by Tripolar.
If I may Jragon, I’d like to derive from your question, “But at what point can you truly say we “understand” something?” this question, “But at what point can you truly say we “understand” consciousness?”
Therefore, both questions must be answered in order to answer the question in the OP, “Is the human brain the most complex object in the universe?”
I’ve heard several people argue that human consciousness involves a superposition of quantum states across “many worlds” boundaries.
(Disclaimer: I think it’s a load of hooey!)
Roger Penrose hinted at this in “The Emperor’s New Mind.” I’ve seen it put forward, extremely tentatively and as a “woo” hypothesis, other places.
The conventional argument is that human consciousness involves a modeling of possible outcomes. The mind is constantly assessing its own actions, and trying to predict the consequences. (“What if I told my boss to go stuff himself? What if, instead, I say ‘Yes, sir,’ like I always do? What if I simply haul off and slug him?”)
The quantum-physics fantasy version of this is that consciousness is an overlay of all of those worlds where such alternate actions actually take place. We don’t have to guess what happens; a version of ourselves lives in a world where it really happens!
Again…hooey!
Well, I’m a big fan of the MWI for QM, and in that context I don’t think it’s hooey to view some aspects of ‘consciousness’ as something of a mundane consequence. There is no such thing as “free will” for example; merely the branching of the wave function, and the anthropic illusion that one “chose their branch” when they really “chose” every branch. The only thing that is mystifying to me is the question of ‘qualia.’ Everything else to me boils down to “consciousness is that which says it is conscious”, and nothing more.
ETA: but what you related, specifically, I agree is hooey
In other words, all objects in the universe are composed of microscopic constituents which follow microscopic rules.
Welcome to the dope, eastairwave. Don’t mind Kosmik, he seems to be in some kind of ELIZA-like infinite loop.
I’d go as far as saying ‘consciousness is that which appears to be conscious’. Didn’t you argue that you weren’t conscious while others insisted you were?
Qualia seems so trivial to me. It is the record of an experience. Whether it is statically or dynamically composed doesn’t matter, it’s just the combination of thought, emotion, and memory of circumstances. Another ego driven device.
Yes, I don’t believe I am ‘conscious’, at least to the extent that I have no idea what the word is supposed to mean beyond that it is a word people attribute to themselves, in the same way that a computer can be programmed to attribute any word to itself.
I can “see” the color red in a way that seems distinct from the mere record of a 660nm photon having been absorbed by my retina. In other words, I accept that I am as a computer, who, having recorded a 660nm photon, associates the word “red.” I am programmed to say that I “see” red, when in fact I am simply retrieving information. But I have trouble reconciling this with the existence of a subjective “quality” to red. Though ultimately I may be programmed to think I experience qualia when in fact I do not, it is quite a mysterious and compelling illusion.
You see the color, but besides the input of some signals from your eye, your awareness of the color will connect with all your experiences related to it. The qualia is more than just the basic stimulus response, it includes the connection to all other similar responses. The subjective quality is simply your own set of individual experiences. Your difficulty in reconciling this may be the qualia of your concept of qualia (Maybe Kozmic could work on that for a while).
Hmm, this seems distinctly at odds with not only my personal experience, but with the entire concept of ‘qualia.’ At the very least you are not doing the subject justice. Are we really on the same page here? One of the defining properties of qualia is that they are fundamentally incommunicable, something I think at odds with your description (though you may perceive this as a subtle point, it is enormously important). Individual experiences sans qualia, though possibly complex and abstract, are not fundamentally incommunicable.