More on Consciousness-- can we even say what it is?

Great Debates
21

Somehow this is turning into a debate about definitions?

Drastic, definitions are just that: they define things. Then assumptions, postulates, and axioms are all assumed to be true for the purposes of any one theory. Those assumed truths and definitions interact to form predictive conclusions. These are what get tested.

If the predictive conclusions are false with respect to the real world, either our assumptions were unacceptable or our definitions were unacceptable.

Truth has no meaning when applied to definitions or assumptions. How could it? They are what we use to assign truth! Sheesh.

The definition of consciousness, when combined with the definition of free will, when combined with the assumption that consciousness exists and the assumption that free will exists, should predict what sort of things are conscious.

I am looking for input from members of the board as to what sort of definition they like. Using that, I would like to demonstrate what sort of things should be considered conscious under that definition. If the poster has no qualms about that definition, then fine. If they do, we should work to refine that definition.

I have a problem with algorithmic consciousness as I feel that it isn’t really conscious, just another algorithm with a longer name. So, I seek a definition of consciousness which accounts for the non-algorithmic nature (seemingly!) of consciousness. When I attempt to do so I find that I cannot.

No; then they are not definitions if they can be false. I know of no method of “disproving” definitions. Perhaps you could be more explicit.

22

Well, right there is a wall, I figure. Truth–capitalized merely by sentence structure here–simply is in how the world is; it isn’t assigned. It isn’t generated by language; langauge is simply used to express things in consonance with it, or not, or a mixture. If I define myself as “invulnerable,” then press my hand on a sizzling-hot skillet, I’m going to burn the heck outta myself because that’s how the world operates in such circumstances. My definition of myself would be false. I don’t see how that’s a difficult concept, personally.

Now, you can say that the unspoken prediction (that, given the invulnerable definition, I would be able to press my hand against a sizzling skillet without being burned) was not true, while the definition itself is neither true nor false. I just think that saying things like that makes one look rather daft.

And how will those predictions be tested? Do you have a general methodology in mind, or do you think a methodology will magically appear with a definition in place? If, however, it will only yield predictions that state “by these assumptions, X should be a conscious thing…but we’ve no way of testing or evaluating that”…well, so what? In my more mystically-minded times, I’ve a lot of faith-based sympathy for the notion of pan-consciousness, that it’s really the basic thing of reality–that there really is something that it’s like to be a brick. It’s felt “true” on occasion (generally in zazen when suddenly complaints from the legs totally drop out and time-binding briefly disappears from awareness), but it’s utterly non-testable.

The only assumptions when things can’t be tested are faith-based ones and narrative. Regarding the partner assumption, is there a way of testing whether or not free will or determinism is correct? My approach to philosophy is purely that of a layman, but it’s my impression it’s still debated over precisely because there is no way to test it–predictions from assuming one vs. the other don’t differ. As you said up above, “…the results are the same and the only difference is perspective.” When that’s the case, nothing is testable, and thus angels dance on pins. I believe free will exists, it feels true (and in a much stronger way then the odd shifts in consciousness that can occur when you just sit and breathe), but that’s as much as I can say about it.

Exactly. As I said originally, I don’t believe any such satisfactory definitions exists, because it (the predictions it enables, if you prefer) cannot be tested.

The really interesting thing about the definition of consciousness-as-dangling-epiphenomenon is that it does a total end-run around the algorithm question. An algorithm models a process that does something. Of course, that definition does not assume free will–interestingly, it doesn’t assume determinism at all, that’s just a result of it. It makes me somewhat uncomfortable to consider it, but I can’t dismiss it because of that.

But, it doesn’t feel right. From what I’ve read of Penrose (Shadows of the Mind, Emperor’s… is something I keep meaning to get to), there’s a good case that it sure seems like there’s something about consciousness that even phenomenally complex algorithms don’t capture well. So, that’s a mystery. I think it’s a mystery that no one will have the answer to–or rather, any way of testing their answers to–for at least my lifetime, and probably longer. That’s all.

23

erislover, I don’t think, with our way of thinking, that the definition you seek can be had. Consciousness comes before any definition. You need to have a way of integrating consciousness into the thought system to even talk about it. Perhaps that’s why my original definition seems circular to you. If you’ve ever read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, it is like defining Quality. You just can’t do it without destroying what Quality really means. Your dilemma is not a new one. Just read some Descartes, or Kant if you don’t believe me. They never could figure it out and I think you’re on the same path. A futile path, IMO.

You know what consciousness is. You have to know what it is to even begin discussing things like this. The reason you have to know is because you are aware you exist, which instantly defines consciousness to you. If you look at some Eastern thought systems, you will see that they accept this mode of thinking. How many Eastern philosophers have you seen that are having a hard time understanding consciousness? :wink: I haven’t seen any. The reason is that consciousness is a concept that is intrinsic to Eastern philosophy and is a known constant that is used as a jumping off point.

Assign truth?! Is truth something that we just make up? I can see if one uses definitions to arrive at a truth, if those definitions are based on truths themselves. And if they are, then we call those definitions true. What about universal truths? Do you think there is anything that we know for sure, without having to arrive at it based off assumptions? And wouldn’t those truths come before any definition or assumption?

What upsets me about the convoluted path Western philosophers have taken to define consciousness is that it is a slap in the face to humanity. It is taking for granted one of our few, true gifts. I believe consciousness is one of the very few things that we can ever know to be true. Consciousness is what separates us from the abyss.

Oops, sorry to wax metaphysical on you. :wink:
Now, to address free will, as it applies to consciousness:

Free will is a hard concept to work with, because we don’t have any reference to what free will isn’t. But, this is as close as I can come to an understanding of it.

Say I am a fly. Say that I am not conscious of my existence. (I have no idea if flies are conscious of their existence or not, but it’s easier to think of a bug as not having consciousness than a human not having it.;)) If I am not aware that I exist, then I am driven to go through my life performing tasks that are based off of algorithms (to use your word). I fly to a dung heap and lay eggs not because I desire to, or because of love or because of any feeling that is based on a conscious awareness of myself, but because of the way I am built; Because the algorithm to lay eggs in a dung heap are built in to my body. I have no free will. I am living life according to an algorithm.

Now, say I am Cecil Adams(HA!). I write articles. Why? Because I am have no choice but to write them? No way! Because I desire to write them. Maybe I want to share knowledge, maybe I want to be popular, maybe I have a love of writing. But none of those feelings can ever even exist unless I am aware that I exist. If I’m not aware that I exist, how can I desire something for myself?
So, to put that all together, I guess what I’m saying is that 1)We know what consciousness is, based off of the knowledge that we are aware that we exist, 2)Consciousness can not be defined because it comes before definition, at the leading edge of perception, and 3) Free will is a direct consequence of consciousness and could not exist without it.

24

I am still mentally tired after a truth debate with well-intentioned kabbes and spiritus mundi explaining some philosophical comments on truth.

Yes, truth is assigned. What meaning would it have otherwise? You are welcome to use empirical evidence as a method of determining truth, but definitions still have no truth value-- from where would it come?

If a definition leads to a contradiction or conflict with the construct you wish to use it in, then the definition is simply inappropriate to that construct. It isn’t false.

Think of it this way. We define the meaning of “truth.” Can that definition be false? How?

Drastic

Yes, I have several methodologies in mind, actually, starting from different assumptions. That is of little concern to this conversation, though.

So I know what the hell I am talking about, and I can lay out a path to allow other people to agree or disagree with me. This is not trivial! We expect no less when we discuss biology, politics… why would this be any different???

Well, testing philosophy isn’t an absolute requirement… especially so in this case. I am attempting to build a more comprehensive framework in which to understand reality, understand truth, and so on. There have been many philosophers in the past who have done such things, and while I do not intend to be as systematic or complete as them, I am still left unsatisfied by many of the attempts and conclusions.

Well, interesting that I meet another who is unsatisfied by the algorithmic view but yet cannot find an alternative. As I say, I want to find one too but seemingly not only can I not find one, but there isn’t one!

Demo

Interesting idea, but I’m not sure how to apply it to understanding anything that comes as a result of consciousness. If consciousness comes before definitions, any results of consciousness are also void of definitions. This does not help me understand the world! It also violates the idea of even having an implicit definition.

Pretty unsatisfactory.

Er, how? If I cannot define it the word has no meaning. Do you agree that any other word without a definition has no meaning?

I know what I think consciousness should include; these things do not lead me to believe that consciousness is non-algorithmic. I do not feel consciousness is 100% algorithmic. I cannot find a way to include non-algorithmic ideas into the definition.

I am working on one such definition of a non-detreministic non-free will consciousness which is a result of quantum mechanics, but unfortunately I do not have the technical background there, only the layman’s explanations. I think it would be somewhat dangerous to start understanding consciousness from such a view!

This doesn’t make sense to me. If it has meaning, we should be able to define it in some way. If we define it, we state its meaning. how does assigning meaning to something addmittedly meaningful destroy it?

They avoid it, pure and simple.

Both of you
I invite you, when you have a significant amount of spare time, to review this thread with respect to the assignment and derivation of truth. I said some pretty inane things in the begging, but it really gets interesting on the second page, and wraps up (IIRC) on page 5 with my giving up (at that time). LOL I think I understand better now after reading it over and over again. :wink:

I’d point you to my webpage, but unfortunately it is down and not acecssible. :frowning:

25

Yup, there’s a wall. Reality is what it is, and the truth of a statement is measured by how well it matches to what reality is. Again, if I define myself as invulnerable, then do something guaranteed to cause me injury, that’s not an “inappropriate use” of a definition in a “construct I wish to use it in”–that’s just me injuring myself by acting on a false definition, and if I explain to the emergency room staff that really, my definition of myself as invulnerable cannot be shown to be false despite the charred lump on my wrist, said staff is going to smile and nod and chalk it into their amusing-anecdote file.

“This sentence is a lie.”

The reality of language use is that we use phonemes that the nature of the human vocal apparatus makes possible, and in extension use written symbols in a way our manual dexterity and capabilities make possible, following evolving rules of construction that are culturally agreed upon. If you define the sound “truth” as having the meaning that every other English-speaker assigns to “ice cream,” that’s not false so much as it is stupid, and meaningless in the contexts the rest of everyone uses it. (The ice cream is, I didn’t kill that man!)

But that has little to do with my defining myself as invulnerable (with “invulnerable” having the culturally agreed-upon meaning, and not a personal disengenuous meaning of “capable of being badly burned”), and paying the cost for that false definition.

I’ll be happy to look at that thread, but you’ll need to give a valid link–or give an indication of when it was so a search is a quicker matter. But I’ll probably simply leave truth-issues right there if you’re only going to not say inane things once the thread gets long enough. :slight_smile:

The thing about a conversation is, it’s not one-sided, so I’ll ask you to speak for your own side. I’m curious as to what they are.

Heh. I’m reminded mostly of the Douglas Adams bit where the two philosophers angrily demand that Deep Thought, above all else, never find the answer.

An alternative that can be tested. That’s why I’m interested in methodologies, for all that “the conversation” doesn’t find it of concern.

26

Dunno why the link doesn’t work… it looks exactly the same to me.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=49819

Well, we’re going to disagree on this forever, then. A definition cannot be true or false to me, it can only be inappropriate to the context; that is, it would contradict other definitions or lead to results that are contradictions (if not outright false).

Give me some time and I can outline some of the definitions I currently working with to give you a better idea, but right now I gotta do laundry :frowning:

27

The thread url “invalidity” thing was causing me more headache then consciousness ever did, then resolved itself in a flash. Compare:
threadid=foo
theadid=foo

It’s always the little things that cause big differences. There’s some way to link that to the topic on-hand, I’m sure.

Sold! It’s a deal.

Reminds me, tangentially, of a koan. New student at the monastery goes up to the master. “What is the essence of Buddha?” he asks, or something similarly enormous. Now, Zen masters have reputations to uphold, namely the reputation of giving hair-pullingly non-sequitor answers to earnest questions (it’s in the bylaws), and this one (Joshu, if I remember correctly) was no different.

He stalled for time. (Students have to respond immediately, or they tended to get beaten with sticks–one even got his finger slashed off, which is a bit harsh–but masters are allowed to pause and marshal an appropriately oblique response to things.) “Er…have you eaten your rice?” he asked. This was a rhetorical question, everyone in the monastery had just finished eating dinner, the student was holding onto the bowl still. But good delaying tactic.

The student eyed the master’s student-whacking stick with trepidation, looked at his bowl, looked at the stick, took a half-step back, a half-step forward, gulped. “Umm…yes?” he ventured in a small voice.

The master relaxed his grip on the student-whacking stick, for the delay had allowed him to come up with the perfect oblique response; a non-sequitor, but with just enough meaning to insure that puzzling over it would cause the student more pain in his head then a stick-whack would ever accomplish. “Then go wash your bowls,” he stated gravely, and dismissed the student.

I paraphrase the traditional wording, obviously enough. But I’m convinced that most koans were intended not to be read in portentous, somber tones. For obvious reasons, I will avoid any sangha that thinks whacking sticks are the bee’s knees.

Incidentally, I agree that eastern religions don’t so much “understand” consciousness as avoid giving definitions of it entirely–but with good reason. But if I thought discussion of them should be avoided, I would have…avoided.

Take all the time needed or desired, whenever. I don’t think this is any kind of race.

28

OK, I’m back, though my laindry is simply begging to be put away.

First, I’d like to clarify first and foremost that this is not directly an attempt to gain knowledge. It is simply a matter of definition; later, those definitions may be used inside a construct of logic (for example) to derive truths or falsehoods.

The idea is: do I know consciousness when I see it? The answer is: no. It is analogous to a bald man problem. I am tempted to define consciousness algorithmically, and arrive at the point mentioned earlier: any self-referencing symbol system is conscious.

This is a remarkably inconclusive answer, however, because “symbol set” is so abstract as to be meaningless. If I scribble “This sentence is written in English” does that make the sentence conscious, or the post which contains it? The paragraph?

Something is missing, either in complexity or in-- well, in the definition itself.

I don’t want to “test” consciousness, I want to be able to assign meaning to the term. “I am conscious.” Does that mean I can reference myself? To whom? To myself? With what? A symbol system? Does a symbol system include sounds?

Sure, some might say. Not I, oh no, not so simple sez I.

What sort of things do I consider implicit? The idea of physical construction. When can we say when something is physical? Boy, that’s a toughie to describe without referencing a consciousness. But let us say, half-heartedly (for now) that a physical thing is able to influence other physical things. It is a recursive definition, yeah? I am afraid that I am not aware of how to make basic definitions without being in some way circular or recursive. Anyone who wants to critique that definition is welcome to, however, if they can provide a more intuitive alternative.

We also have the phenomenon, being defined as the influence between two physical things.

We have causality which would be defined similar to the logical “implies” operator. Given P, then Q. I say “similar” because we are not assigning truth value to anything, I am merely defining “causality.” Truly a more strict definition would require that an arbitrary (but consistent) order is assigned to phenomena in question, iether by degree (magnitude of interaction) or sequence (time-based).

I then assert: physical things exist. This means that phenomena exist. This says nothing about causality. At this point, causality does not do much other than provide a shortcut method of linking phenomena together, and at our present time they are essentially arbitrary.

But wait, you say, what the hell do you mean by “exist?” Deal with it, strict ontology is for another day.

Can consciousness be defined using the following words:
phenomena
causality
existence
physical objects
?

Probably not. What more is needed? A vague sense of order for causality to have a more meaningful definition. A flimsy tree of phenomena related to causality. A shitload of other definitions.

I am willing to assume our body of mathematical and scientific knowledge to make this definition. I am willing to accept that things that “normally” aren’t considered conscious are, in fact, conscious in some way once we agree upon a definition.

I am willing, frankly, to accept a lot and let definitions be pretty loose and intuitive to start. I am not a professional philosopher and definitely have no plans to be, so what will suit me probably wouldn’t suit people with a higher sense of intellectual honesty.

But damn it, there has to be a more suitable definition than what we have right now, which is basically an abstract word defined by abstract concepts that only have meaning assuming that you are conscious in the first place. This, to me, is not a suitable definition.

I am conscious. How do I know? Frankly, I don’t, and any attempt to try and know only serves to demonstrate to me more and more that consciousness does not exist. If that is the only conclusion I can come to then I will accept it, but damn if it doesn’t feel right!

For now, however, I think that recursiveness is definitely one of the keys to a definition, though not the sole reuqirement (unless we want the theory of consciousness to be conscious, or our DNA to be conscious, which i suppose isn’t out of the question but you’d really be hard pressed to find things that weren’t conscious-- in which case it is a pretty empty term).

29

Laundry begging to be put away: what, you don’t have a floor?

“bald man problem”–what the heck is that?

Knowing consciousness when one sees it: here, my take is that consciousness isn’t something to be seen, it is the seeing itself. It’s a verb rather than a noun. Sort of.

Self-referencing is interesting all in all, but in the end lacking: agreed. I didn’t see what was so golden about the braid, but enjoyed my first reading of GEB anyway.

Physical things are patterns of reality whose characteristics have been nearly exhaustively described at both macroscopic and deeply downwards in scale by modern scientific approach. The precision of predictions yielded by quantum mechanics, for one, is almost absurd in how many decimal places it achieves. (I don’t recall the exact number claimed in one of my layman’s cosmology books, but it was large.) Physical things are built out of a sizable number of atoms, which have pretty well-known properties, and the pattern of their construction together yields other properties that are also well-known. I don’t see the definition of physical as being much of a problem anymore, compared to a few centuries previous. Consciousness’ exact relationship to those properties of construction remains a mystery, but I accept that human consciousness definitely has one–rough alterations in the physical construction of the brain (via accidental and deliberate lesions, mostly) have huge impact on the consciousness rising out of that brain–do a google search on “Phineas Gage” some time. Fascinating stuff.

This assumes that consciousness is responsible, in a causal sorta way, for behavior. Feels right, but unprovable.

Causality exists, yup. I would say degree of interaction AND sequence, not an or. Causality is a perceived pattern of arrangements of spacetime which have, in theory at least, reproducibility to them.

And I certainly DON’T say what the hell do you mean by “exist”? I might say that if I didn’t give a damn about empirical experience. If I’ve given that impression, I need to do some calibrating of my left-brain verbal expression circuitry. :slight_smile:

Sure it can. Off the top of my head: “Consciousness is a phenomenon–whose nature and properties are not yet adequately understood–that arises from certain physical objects that exist, caused by or depending on properties of those physical objects that have yet to be adequately understood. Consciousness has the capacity to affect physical objects that exist via directing of volitional action. This includes both the objects that it arises from, and those other than that.” This definition assumes no supernatural or supranatural components and assumes free will is a factor. It yields very few testable predictions (it does yield some, see below) because of the fact that many of the depedent properties involved are as yet unknown.

One of the only testable parts is, that it is affected by the alteration of the brain. Very easy to test–if you’re not willing to accept secondhand stories, get a less-than-ethical neurosurgeon to cut out most of, say, your hippocampus, and see if your consciousness alters.

I’m not. The current body of our knowledge cannot, because there are too many unknown properties at play. Quantum mechanics could never have come about without a solid body of reproducible knowledge of the classical variety and some systems in mathematics that rose not too terribly long before it; the same with the nearly-simultaneous development of relativity.

The current body of our knowledge might be able, using present techniques of investigation, to figure out those mystery properties. I doubt that; one of the problems in monitoring brain activity, for one thing, is that the resolution simply isn’t that small yet–looking at individual neuron’s behavior needs things like direct electrodes and such, which is rather difficult on the more deeply-buried ones.

There has to be a more suitable definition: sure. Whatever it may be, though, remains a mystery until such time (if ever) it can be measured, tested.

I am conscious. How do I know that? Because I experience it. I’ve even experienced consciousness in which “I” wasn’t present in the sense of separate identity, and if everyday doing-the-laundry and buying-groceries consciousness is a slippery thing for words…well, hell. You’ve tried to describe a very personally-meaningful acid trip before on these boards. Difficult to do. That it’s difficult, and possibly downright impossible, to do, will that make you accept that the experience itself didn’t happen, didn’t exist?

If so, I think a bit of that truth-wall snuck in here.

Hard-pressed to find things that weren’t conscious: yep, that’s the downside of pan-consciousness, which is recursive to the extreme. Irrevocably non-testable–the test itself would be conscious, so you’d need to test the test. I still don’t see what’s so golden about that, it’s mostly like turning a camera to face the tv screen that’s displaying the camera output. Interesting to look at, but not very troubling to me. I think that somehow, the key lies in: the camera can be pointed away from the screen, too.

30

Neither, IMHO. It is a set of physical symbols (i.e. letters/words written on a page) but it is not a physical symbol system because it does not contain any methods for operating upon itself.

It has data, but no processes or ways to carry those processes out.

From “Computer Science as Empirical Inquiry: Symbols and Search” by Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon, published in Communications of the ACM, March 1976, Volume 19 Number 3
(you can tell I don’t have the foggiest how to do a proper cite, but that should be enough info):

If “I am conscious” is true, then the “I”, the object of the proposition, is a physical symbol system with some nested levels of self-reference.

It might.

I hear ya. But think about it, what definitions aren’t basically abstract words defined by abstract concepts?