Every time someone goes screaming "materialism" I like to have a chuckle

[blü 2]

Don't you think that this leaves a complete mystery as to why the activity of neurons gives rise to experience (assuming that it does)? There seems to be no connection at all.

It seems reasonable to think that human evolution favored those brain reactions to sensory input which were most effective for survival and breeding; and that would include discriminating wavelengths within a particular band as the perception red or blue or green &c, and discriminating a particular mouthful of fruit or fish or leaves as the perception sweet or salt or bitter &c, and discriminating a particular sound as the perception loud, soft, harmonious, familiar, unfamiliar, &c.

You may recall those red numbers that Arnie's Terminator 1 saw down the side of his vision, a computer readout of data which apparently related to his environment. In humans this readout is unnecessary because the processing evolved as internalized from the beginning.

If the human perceptions of color, taste, sound &c as the means of processing sensory input weren't as they are, what would you expect to find in their place?

 

[Polymath257]

Thank you. I respect your your patience and nice manners. Pranam.

But, I must repeat I see no connection between all these 'bio-elecro-chemical schemes' and the actual taste of mango that I enjoy and the experience of bliss of non dual unsullied "I am" awareness of deep sleep (unconscious) and of meditation (conscious). Everyone has experience of bliss and rejuvenation of deep sleep. But no one ever gives a thought as to why? Science of objects neither provide explanation for the subjective experience of depression-pain that the whole world suffers from nor it provides the means for overcoming the angst and hopelessness.

The reason a mango tastes the way it does is because the the chemicals that make up the mango. Many of those are quite complicated, but the various sugars and other taste compounds are rather simple. Each fruit has a different characteristic combination of those taste chemicals. The same can be said for the odor chemicals. Human taste is a processing of these taste and odor chemicals. In particular, our sense of smell is quite elaborate and able to detect a wide variety of chemicals and distinguish between them.

A mango with different chemicals would taste completely different. And of course, there is extensive processing based on expectations.

Again, why would this NOT be the essence of a sensory experience? We have all the components: the variety of chemicals in the mango, sensors to detect those chemicals, processing to correlate the different chemicals detected, predictability, etc.

You recall correctly. I was seeing a TED talk by Antonio Damasio. He defines consciousness as that which comes up when one wakes from deep dreamless sleep.

We OTOH, say that that is waking of the ego-mind. Consciousness-awareness, which we define as the competence for discernment is fundamental to existence and is unborn and never absent. That is what we are. On waking up, we say that we did not know anything in sleep -- and that is knowing.

Yes, knowing when you are back awake. Not when you are asleep.

 

[Polymath257]

h a

Don't you think that this leaves a complete mystery as to why the activity of neurons gives rise to experience (assuming that it does)? There seems to be no connection at all.

There is every connection. Our senses detect the properties of the environment iat a certain level of detail. The brain processes and organizes that information, correlating to memory and expectations. What else is there to 'experience'?

 

[Yerda]

It seems reasonable to think that human evolution favored those brain reactions to sensory input which were most effective for survival and breeding; and that would include discriminating wavelengths within a particular band as the perception red or blue or green &c, and discriminating a particular mouthful of fruit or fish or leaves as the perception sweet or salt or bitter &c, and discriminating a particular sound as the perception loud, soft, harmonious, familiar, unfamiliar, &c.

You may recall those red numbers that Arnie's Terminator 1 saw down the side of his vision, a computer readout of data which apparently related to his environment. In humans this readout is unnecessary because the processing evolved as internalized from the beginning.

If the human perceptions of color, taste, sound &c as the means of processing sensory input weren't as they are, what would you expect to find in their place?

Hi.

From looking at the properties of neurotransmission you shouldn't expect to find that there is any experience at all, is my point.

Wouldn't evolution have found the ability to respond mechanically to the environment without sensation just as favourable?

If we designed a clever robot that can process images and respond accordingly, by catching a ball for example, we wouldn't expect that it was having a subjective experience of the motion of the ball. Would we?

There is every connection. Our senses detect the properties of the environment iat a certain level of detail. The brain processes and organizes that information, correlating to memory and expectations. What else is there to 'experience'?

Hi.

I'm asking why there is any association between the activity of neurons and subjective experience. It appears to me to be a total mystery that connecting one neuron to some others and those to others is associated with the experience of hunger or blue. The properties of neurotransmission are completely unlike the properties of consciousness, categorically different infact.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

 

[Polymath257]

Hi.

From looking at the properties of neurotransmission you shouldn't expect to find that there is any experience at all, is my point.

Wouldn't evolution have found the ability to respond mechanically to the environment without sensation just as favourable?

Well, sensation *is* the detection of the sensory input by the brain. And the brain must detect and process that information. The very process of doing so is what constitutes the experience.

If we designed a clever robot that can process images and respond accordingly, by catching a ball for example, we wouldn't expect that it was having a subjective experience of the motion of the ball. Would we?

if we gave it feedback loops of positive and negative responses to the environment, and the ability to interact in a complex way with the environment, and the ability to model itself in that environment, then yes, I *would* expect it to have subjective experiences of the processing of the information about that ball.

Hi.

I'm asking why there is any association between the activity of neurons and subjective experience. It appears to me to be a total mystery that connecting one neuron to some others and those to others is associated with the experience of hunger or blue. The properties of neurotransmission are completely unlike the properties of consciousness, categorically different infact.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

No, really I don't. The subjective experience *is* the processing of the information by the brain. We *are* the way our brains process information. I really don't see that the properties of neurotransmission are that greatly different than the properties of consciousness. Both are, at base, the processing of information. Both allow the modeling of a 'self' as part of that processing. Both are unique to each individual.

For example, hunger *is* the sensation you get when certain neurons respond to the lack of blood sugar and the stomach being empty. There are very specific, well understood, mechanisms that trigger the sensation of hunger and those are all mediated by neurons.

The experience of blue happens in the occipital lobe of the brain, which processes visual information. Even if the eyes are closed and you are dreaming about the color blue, those areas of the brain are active and producing the sensation of blueness.

What properties, specifically, do you think consciousness has that processing in the brain does NOT have?

 

[Yerda]

Well, sensation *is* the detection of the sensory input by the brain. And the brain must detect and process that information. The very process of doing so is what constitutes the experience.



if we gave it feedback loops of positive and negative responses to the environment, and the ability to interact in a complex way with the environment, and the ability to model itself in that environment, then yes, I *would* expect it to have subjective experiences of the processing of the information about that ball.



No, really I don't. The subjective experience *is* the processing of the information by the brain. We *are* the way our brains process information. I really don't see that the properties of neurotransmission are that greatly different than the properties of consciousness. Both are, at base, the processing of information. Both allow the modeling of a 'self' as part of that processing. Both are unique to each individual.

For example, hunger *is* the sensation you get when certain neurons respond to the lack of blood sugar and the stomach being empty. There are very specific, well understood, mechanisms that trigger the sensation of hunger and those are all mediated by neurons.

The experience of blue happens in the occipital lobe of the brain, which processes visual information. Even if the eyes are closed and you are dreaming about the color blue, those areas of the brain are active and producing the sensation of blueness.

What properties, specifically, do you think consciousness has that processing in the brain does NOT have?

Hi again. Thanks for your reply. Let me think about it a little. Maybe what you've said addresses the issue for me and if not maybe I can make it clear why it doesn't.

 

[blü 2]

From looking at the properties of neurotransmission you shouldn't expect to find that there is any experience at all, is my point.

But the process is always one of sensor sending signals to HQ, which must interpret them. The manner of interpretation seems to be what distinguishes the Big Five senses from all our other senses, and that appears to be because they're most directly concerned with reporting the external world to us (in a way not true of proprioception, hunger, needing a pee and many more, or the largely autonomous systems that look after the heart or the gut). So my guess is that evolution chose what we have because it works ─ and what we have is what we inherited across 3.5 bn years of cell evolution and half a billion as land animals.

Wouldn't evolution have found the ability to respond mechanically to the environment without sensation just as favorable?

Or you could work backwards from that to the conclusion that interpreting the external world is a problem in a different category to internal reporting and regulation, and that the half-billion years of our evolution on land, salted with the odd extinction event here and there, have had the chance to sort the question out pretty thoroughly.

If we designed a clever robot that can process images and respond accordingly, by catching a ball for example, we wouldn't expect that it was having a subjective experience of the motion of the ball. Would we?

If we could, why not? At least then we could get an impression from field testing which system worked better for particular purposes. And we might find we're both right. (Or wrong, of course.)

 

[tas8831]

1. The mind and matter have wholly contradictory properties and so must be wholly separate things by the Law of Identity.

Is the brain matter? If the brain is made of matter, then the mind is a property of it.

2. We're certain of consciousness and rely on it for all knowledge of matter. Can't reduce what we know to what we only know through it.

Assertion .

3. The human mind can question, manipulate, and go against nature to extreme degrees and so cannot be of nature. Empirical evidence includes medicine, cognitive therapy, self regulation, placebos, technological advancements, etc.

More assertions, this time devoid of any real rationale that I can see. How does the human mind "go against nature"? You mention medicine, but how it that 'against nature'?

4. The Advent of higher consciousness during the Upper Paleolithic Revolution contradicts biologocal evolution in that it (1) occurred when we were already biologically modern, (2) effected the entire species at one time, and (3) is capable of what we discussed in #3.

I should like to see your evidence that the advent of "higher consciousness" occurred during the upper paleolithic.

Right after you define and provide evidence for "higher consciousness" and contrast it with, I guess, 'lower' consciousness.

I can see why previous discussions on this never got anywhere. 'The mind' is a function of the material brain. If it were not, then brain trauma should not affect things like personality, and yet a freshman psychology student will probably know the tale of Phineas Gage, which refutes the notion that the 'mind' is independent of the brain.

 

[tas8831]

So like matter you believe minds take up space, can be accessed by others, act linearly, etc? Can you please provide evidence of this?

Can you demonstrate that a mind exists without 'matter' (i.e., the brain)?
If not, then you have no case at all.

So I can self regulate without higher consciousness?

Please define "self regulate."

It was a rise in higher consciousness, not only including advances in tool use but things like abstract thought, art, religion, culture, etc. Maybe actually look into it?

So you equate "higher consciousness" with art and the like. You anti-materialists believe the weirdest stuff...

 

[tas8831]

Can your mind go against nature by keeping a high level of consciousness after 30 very materialistic vodka shots? Or after having been hit on the head by a very materialistic hammer?

Looks like it does not take much to materialism to knock down your awesome spiritual energy, or whatever you believe it is

Ciao

- viole

Materialism, at least, has real-world implications.

Materialism rocks!