What If Consciousness Comes First?

[sun rise]

This is, to me, an interesting Psychology Today piece It is a discussion of how pure consciousness is a mandatory part of existence.https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...ness/201907/what-if-consciousness-comes-first

Despite the success of neuroscience in establishing a wide range of correlations between brain processes and conscious experience, there is at least one question about the relationship between the brain and consciousness that continues to appear unanswerable, even in principle. This is the question of why we have conscious experience at all.


The problem is that there could conceivably be brains that perform all the same sensory and decision-making functions as ours but in which there is no conscious experience. That is, there could be brains that react as though sad but that don’t feel sadness, brains that can discriminate between wavelengths of light but that don’t see red or yellow or blue or any other color, brains that direct their bodies to eat certain foods but that don’t taste them. So why is there nevertheless something that it’s like to be us?
...
The issue is that physical properties are by their nature relational, dispositional properties. That is, they describe the way that something is related to other things and/or has the disposition to affect or be affected by those other things. Most notably, physical properties describe the way that something affects an outside observer of that thing. But there is something going on in conscious experience that goes beyond how that conscious experience affects people looking at it from the outside. For this reason, the “what it’s like” to be a conscious mind can’t be described in the purely relational, dispositional terms accessible to science. There’s just no way to get there from here.

This explanatory gap is what is now commonly referred to as the “hard problem” of consciousness...

if the universe is to actually exist, its properties can’t be exclusively relational/dispositional. Something in the universe has to have some kind of quality in and of itself to give all the other relational/dispositional properties any meaning. Something has to get the ball rolling.

That something (at least in our universe) is consciousness.

 

[Revoltingest]

Something in the universe has to have some kind of quality in and of itself to give all the other relational/dispositional properties any meaning. Something has to get the ball rolling.

That something (at least in our universe) is consciousness.

Whence comes this premise?
It sounds an awful like the argument that there must be a supreme deity.

I prefer the view that consciousness is an emergent property of the laws
of physics & the existence of matter & energy....ie, life eventually happens,
& consciousness afflicts the bigger brained life forms.

 

[George-ananda]

I am glad to see media outlets like 'Psychology Today' presenting articles like this. I am glad to see materialism/physicalism does not hold a vise grip on respected media.

As for me this analysis is in sync with my spiritual beliefs and philosophy. The once so-called New Age thinking is becoming more mainstream. I've seen it just in my lifetime.

 

[Bird123]

This is, to me, an interesting Psychology Today piece It is a discussion of how pure consciousness is a mandatory part of existence.

Despite the success of neuroscience in establishing a wide range of correlations between brain processes and conscious experience, there is at least one question about the relationship between the brain and consciousness that continues to appear unanswerable, even in principle. This is the question of why we have conscious experience at all.


The problem is that there could conceivably be brains that perform all the same sensory and decision-making functions as ours but in which there is no conscious experience. That is, there could be brains that react as though sad but that don’t feel sadness, brains that can discriminate between wavelengths of light but that don’t see red or yellow or blue or any other color, brains that direct their bodies to eat certain foods but that don’t taste them. So why is there nevertheless something that it’s like to be us?
...
The issue is that physical properties are by their nature relational, dispositional properties. That is, they describe the way that something is related to other things and/or has the disposition to affect or be affected by those other things. Most notably, physical properties describe the way that something affects an outside observer of that thing. But there is something going on in conscious experience that goes beyond how that conscious experience affects people looking at it from the outside. For this reason, the “what it’s like” to be a conscious mind can’t be described in the purely relational, dispositional terms accessible to science. There’s just no way to get there from here.

This explanatory gap is what is now commonly referred to as the “hard problem” of consciousness...

if the universe is to actually exist, its properties can’t be exclusively relational/dispositional. Something in the universe has to have some kind of quality in and of itself to give all the other relational/dispositional properties any meaning. Something has to get the ball rolling.

That something (at least in our universe) is consciousness.

You are right. Consciousness does come first. We are Spiritual beings in our true natures. We are installed in our physical bodies after birth when long term memories become possible.

Here is where the real problem stems. When we are in our physical bodies, there is so much sensory input that soon one is seduced into thinking this physical world is all there is. Some of the youngest children can still tell the difference.

After learning about this physical world and convinced through the sensory belief this physical world is all there is, one starts to define oneself based on the laws of this physical universe. One ignores the spiritual world because from within a physical body, it simply is.

Since, one tries to base things within this physical world, one quickly discovers the spiritual world comes with an entirely different set of parameters. It is almost impossible to place physical laws on a Spiritual being. On the other hand, there is an interface. The connection is in the brain. Perhaps further study is required.

Even with people's solid belief this physical world is all there is, science is reaching further. Quantum physics is bringing a much different look at this solid physical universe. I see the interconnect as being at the quantum level. On the other hand, after being seduced by the input of this physical world, it is hard for many to conceive of a place without time and space where there are no physical limits.

We can run but we can't hide who we are. People struggle and struggle to acquire so many physical things but aren't the Spiritual ones, the things that really count? Example: Look back at all the gifts you received throughout your life. Which ones do you remember? Which are more important to you? It will always be the ones that touched you spiritually.

As I see it, this physical world exists for only one reason. It's time based causality nature is Perfect for learning. It supplies the foundation by which we can Discover what our choices really mean. It's education at it's best. We are living our lessons. This physical world supplies the structure by which we can not avoid the learning.

 

[bobhikes]

This is, to me, an interesting Psychology Today piece It is a discussion of how pure consciousness is a mandatory part of existence.

Despite the success of neuroscience in establishing a wide range of correlations between brain processes and conscious experience, there is at least one question about the relationship between the brain and consciousness that continues to appear unanswerable, even in principle. This is the question of why we have conscious experience at all.


The problem is that there could conceivably be brains that perform all the same sensory and decision-making functions as ours but in which there is no conscious experience. That is, there could be brains that react as though sad but that don’t feel sadness, brains that can discriminate between wavelengths of light but that don’t see red or yellow or blue or any other color, brains that direct their bodies to eat certain foods but that don’t taste them. So why is there nevertheless something that it’s like to be us?
...
The issue is that physical properties are by their nature relational, dispositional properties. That is, they describe the way that something is related to other things and/or has the disposition to affect or be affected by those other things. Most notably, physical properties describe the way that something affects an outside observer of that thing. But there is something going on in conscious experience that goes beyond how that conscious experience affects people looking at it from the outside. For this reason, the “what it’s like” to be a conscious mind can’t be described in the purely relational, dispositional terms accessible to science. There’s just no way to get there from here.

This explanatory gap is what is now commonly referred to as the “hard problem” of consciousness...

if the universe is to actually exist, its properties can’t be exclusively relational/dispositional. Something in the universe has to have some kind of quality in and of itself to give all the other relational/dispositional properties any meaning. Something has to get the ball rolling.

That something (at least in our universe) is consciousness.

I think the problem is that scientist don't look at intelligence right. If I told you batrium, mushrooms or grass blades all have intelligence you'd look at me funny. They only see animal intelligence which limits there ability to view consciousness. Many forms of intelliegence do not share our emotions or discriminate different forms of light many forms eat without tasting and can't see or hear. If you follow the intelligence trail you will see it and consciousness developed in all life.

 

[Polymath257]

I have never understood why some people think there is a 'hard problem' of consciousness.

In fact, I don't think it *is* conceivable that there could be brains with the *same* decision making and sensory abilities, but that are not conscious.It seems like asking for a sample of gas that has the same molecules and the same basic properties, but a different temperature. Doesn't happen.

I think it meaningless to say that there could be 'brains that react as if sad, but are not sad'. If they *react* as if sad, then they are, by definition, sad. If a brain reacts 'as if' conscious, then it is, in fact, conscious.

And I disagree that consciousness is different than how one is affected by 'other things', although I would admit that to one part of the brain, other parts are 'other things'. This is a dynamic system that interacts both internally and externally. There is NOTHING extra, given the physical description, that is required to know what the 'internal state' is of a conscious being.

At least, based on everything we know about the brain and consciousness, this seems to be the case.

So what, precisely, is the 'hard problem'?

 

[Polymath257]

I think the problem is that scientist don't look at intelligence right. If I told you batrium, mushrooms or grass blades all have intelligence you'd look at me funny. They only see animal intelligence which limits there ability to view consciousness. Many forms of intelliegence do not share our emotions or discriminate different forms of light many forms eat without tasting and can't see or hear. If you follow the intelligence trail you will see it and consciousness developed in all life.

All this tells me is that you are calling something 'conscious' that I do not. So we are looking at different phenomena.

I think that is important. It means there are at least two *different* things people are inclined to call 'conscious' and perhaps we should start to distinguish them more clearly.

What you seem to be pointing to is 'sensitivity', which is some sort of reaction to an environment.

What i am talking about is the ability to model one's own internal state and react to same.

 

[siti]

All this tells me is that you are calling something 'conscious' that I do not. So we are looking at different phenomena.

Right - that's been my argument for quite a long time now - that it is 'experience' that is fundamental - consciousness is a (particularly developed and complex) way of 'experiencing' the world...but atoms and molecules also 'experience' the world - they 'experience' the influence of neighbouring atoms and molecules or electromagnetic fields etc. and this has an effect on their 'behaviour' (i.e. how they spin or move or absorb/emit energy as radiation etc.). Conscious is not so much a 'hard' problem as it is a very complex one. Science is still not terribly good at complexity - but we are slowly, step by step, getting better at it.

 

[Polymath257]

Right - that's been my argument for quite a long time now - that it is 'experience' that is fundamental - consciousness is a (particularly developed and complex) way of 'experiencing' the world...but atoms and molecules also 'experience' the world - they 'experience' the influence of neighbouring atoms and molecules or electromagnetic fields etc. and this has an effect on their 'behaviour' (i.e. how they spin or move or absorb/emit energy as radiation etc.). Conscious is not so much a 'hard' problem as it is a very complex one. Science is still not terribly good at complexity - but we are slowly, step by step, getting better at it.

Even more, when doing fundamental physics, the types of elementary particles are *defined* by how they interact. And, if interaction is taken to be a type of 'experience', then certainly this is a basic concept in how physical reality is even defined.

 

[George-ananda]

In fact, I don't think it *is* conceivable that there could be brains with the *same* decision making and sensory abilities, but that are not conscious.

I can imagine a robot with a computer for a brain that can produce the same behavioral outputs as a human. But I do not feel this computer running some human mimic program FEELS emotions any more than a computer running a mathematical calculation program. It is electrons following logic paths with nothing there capable of subjective experiencing.

This difference is part of the 'hard' problem.

 

[Polymath257]

I can imagine a robot with a computer for a brain that can produce the same behavioral outputs as a human. But I do not feel this computer running some human mimic program FEELS emotions any more than a computer running a mathematical calculation program. It is electrons following logic paths with nothing there capable of subjective experiencing.

This difference is part of the 'hard' problem.

But I disagree that a robot that *exactly* mimicked human behavior would fail to be conscious. The behavior itself is evidence of consciousness.

As I see it, that robot *would* feel in exactly the same sense that humans do: via the circuitry that defines them.

A computer running a calculation isn't built to interact with an outside world and to model its own internal state. So that is, at best, a poor analogy. Human feelings, thoughts, etc *are* the results of neural circuitry in our brains. The only difference with robots is that they would likely be faster.

 

[siti]

I can imagine a robot with a computer for a brain that can produce the same behavioral outputs as a human. But I do not feel this computer running some human mimic program FEELS emotions any more than a computer running a mathematical calculation program. It is electrons following logic paths with nothing there capable of subjective experiencing.

But, in fact, we don't know that. Can you really imagine a robot that can really produce the same behavioural outputs? Suppose you design a robot that mimics human eating and drinking - can you really imagine one that chooses what to eat and drink - and in whose company - without the ability to 'feel' what humans feel? I don't think so. Consciousness is part of the way that humans relate to the world - and behaviour is not computed - it is influenced - by even the tiniest of nuances that would - I reckon - be eternally beyond what a computer 'brain' could be programmed to imitate convincingly.

OTOH - if we ever did manage to produce a robot that perfectly mimicked human behaviour - how would we know that it was not, in fact, experiencing the world in exactly the same way that a human does?

 

[George-ananda]

But I disagree that a robot that *exactly* mimicked human behavior would fail to be conscious. The behavior itself is evidence of consciousness.

As I see it, that robot *would* feel in exactly the same sense that humans do: via the circuitry that defines them.

A computer running a calculation isn't built to interact with an outside world and to model its own internal state. So that is, at best, a poor analogy. Human feelings, thoughts, etc *are* the results of neural circuitry in our brains. The only difference with robots is that they would likely be faster.

So, let’s say we have a bunch of computers running human mimic programs. Can they be treated in ways we consider unethical to people like throwing them in a computer recycling bin after salvaging useful components when we’re tired of them?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I am glad to see media outlets like 'Psychology Today' presenting articles like this. I am glad to see materialism/physicalism does not hold a vise grip on respected media.

As someone in the field, I'm ashamed of what appears to be pseudo-science rubbish that is filled with quasi-religious language that can't be supported or verified scientifically.

 

[Polymath257]

So, let’s say we have a bunch of computers running human mimic programs. Can they be treated in ways we consider unethical to people like throwing them in a computer recycling bin after salvaging useful components when we’re tired of them?

No, when we get to the place that a robot/computer can mimic human behavior to that extent, it would be immoral to 'kill' them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So, let’s say we have a bunch of computers running human mimic programs. Can they be treated in ways we consider unethical to people like throwing them in a computer recycling bin after salvaging useful components when we’re tired of them?

Recycling them would be the only ethical thing to do once they are obsolete and break down to the point of non-functioning. Living organisms go into the ground and the living stuff that decompose it and those around decomposition get nutrients. Computer stuff goes in the ground the environment gets heavily poisoned.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is, to me, an interesting Psychology Today piece It is a discussion of how pure consciousness is a mandatory part of existence.

Despite the success of neuroscience in establishing a wide range of correlations between brain processes and conscious experience, there is at least one question about the relationship between the brain and consciousness that continues to appear unanswerable, even in principle. This is the question of why we have conscious experience at all.


The problem is that there could conceivably be brains that perform all the same sensory and decision-making functions as ours but in which there is no conscious experience. That is, there could be brains that react as though sad but that don’t feel sadness, brains that can discriminate between wavelengths of light but that don’t see red or yellow or blue or any other color, brains that direct their bodies to eat certain foods but that don’t taste them. So why is there nevertheless something that it’s like to be us?
...
The issue is that physical properties are by their nature relational, dispositional properties. That is, they describe the way that something is related to other things and/or has the disposition to affect or be affected by those other things. Most notably, physical properties describe the way that something affects an outside observer of that thing. But there is something going on in conscious experience that goes beyond how that conscious experience affects people looking at it from the outside. For this reason, the “what it’s like” to be a conscious mind can’t be described in the purely relational, dispositional terms accessible to science. There’s just no way to get there from here.

This explanatory gap is what is now commonly referred to as the “hard problem” of consciousness...

if the universe is to actually exist, its properties can’t be exclusively relational/dispositional. Something in the universe has to have some kind of quality in and of itself to give all the other relational/dispositional properties any meaning. Something has to get the ball rolling.

That something (at least in our universe) is consciousness.

I believe in God, and the concept of universal consciousness, but unfortunately this argument is circular, and based on the assumptions that presuppose the necessity to explain via, an 'argument of ignorance' to explain human consciousness has to be universal consciousness.

 

[George-ananda]

No, when we get to the place that a robot/computer can mimic human behavior to that extent, it would be immoral to 'kill' them.

And I say it would be no different than a computer running any other type of software. It’s just electrons mandatorily following logic paths. Certainly we can’t say the electrons and logic gates are in any way different.

 

[Polymath257]

And I say it would be no different than a computer running any other type of software. It’s just electrons mandatorily following logic paths. Certainly we can’t say the electrons and logic gates are in any way different.

We don't give moral agency to any particular neuron either. It is the way they interact and respond to their environment that makes us who we are. Our own neurons 'manditorily' follow the electrochemical paths determined by the physical laws.

So, yes, there is a difference. The soft ware *is* the difference.

 

[George-ananda]

Recycling them would be the only ethical thing to do once they are obsolete and break down to the point of non-functioning. Living organisms go into the ground and the living stuff that decompose it and those around decomposition get nutrients. Computer stuff goes in the ground the environment gets heavily poisoned.

What if I just become bored with my working computer?