Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Consciousness

Consciousness
(04-03-2020, 08:44 PM)Hussein Wrote:
(04-03-2020, 08:07 PM)trdsf Wrote: I make no assertion, I can read what it says.  Nowhere in that list was anything other than purely physical phenomena.
They are indeed physical. Perhaps by reading more about that theory, you can understand a falsifiable scientific theory can imply the existence of a universal consciousness.
I did a little more reading.  Still nothing but woo.

Quote:
Quote:I notice you don't bother answering me.  And I don't believe you have a physics background.  If there is an all-pervading field, tell me what keys I just corrected.  The field is everywhere.  Measure it.  Go on.  I'll wait.
This bit might help:
Quote:experiment and theory imply that unbounded fields, not bounded particles, are fundamental. This is especially clear for relativistic systems, implying that it’s also true of non-relativistic systems. Particles are epiphenomena arising from fields.
There are no particles, there are only fields, Art Hobson, American Journal of Physics. 81, 211 (2013); doi: 10.1119/1.4789885
The string theorists will be interested to know strings don't exist.

Quote:In terms of field theories, the keys you corrected are perturbations in fundamental fields that propagate throughout the universe. The information is theoretically measurable, but that's not feasible, at least for me.
Or for anyone else.  A perfect gas is used all the time in physics, but perfect gases don't exist in reality.  You're perfectly welcome to imagine these infinitesimally small wobbles in a universal electromagnetic field, but they're neither practical nor realistic.  What you're suggesting is that the human mind (brain + consciousness) is capable of detecting physical phenomena that nothing else can, and that very likely nothing else ever could.  That's dangerously close to special pleading, and isn't science.

Quote:
Quote:Wrong.  Those are not theories. I repeat: a theory explains a class of observations and makes definite predictions that are in principle falsifiable.
They are. Field theories of consciousness (implies universal consciousness), Integrated Information Theory (implies panpsychism).
IIT, the second theory, is commonly referred to as the "leading theory of consciousness".

Both theories:
(1) explain a set of observations, but the set is still too small, mainly due to our computational limitations, so none of the theories of consciousness are established yet.
(2) are falsifiable
I did read those articles.  Neither one says anything about "universal consciousness" and "panpsychism".  Those are wishful-thinking addons of yours, not theoretical models.

It's also worth taking notice of the fact that 'universal consciousness' is listed in Wikipedia as religion, and panpsychism as philosophy.  Neither one has the faintest hint of science to them; in fact, one of the objections to panpsychism is that it is neither provable nor falsifiable, and that is as explicitly not science as one may get.
"Aliens?  Us?  Is this one of your Earth jokes?"  -- Kro-Bar, The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
The following 3 users Like trdsf's post:
  • Alan V, SYZ, Szuchow
Reply

Consciousness
(04-04-2020, 05:08 PM)trdsf Wrote: The string theorists will be interested to know strings don't exist.

Your approach of denying field theories and saying maybe string physicists are right to counter my argument suggests you are still not informed about the context of this discussion. 

You must be able to show field theories in which fundamental unbounded fields describe the reality, are in fact not scientific theories at all. This is how you can counter my argument, unfortunately, your statement about string theory shows you are still arguing something that I do not claim. I never claimed field theories are true, my argument relies on the fact that field theories are legitimate scientific theories

Quote:The string theorists will be interested to know strings don't exist.

String theory is not established. Because its falsifiability experiment is not feasible (the size of the required particle accelerator is too large). String physicists are working to introduce a feasible falsifiability experiment. 

So the existence of strings is not established.

Quantum field theories are decisively our current established theories, they have given us unbelievable accuracy and there is a clear consensus about them.

Again I repeat the quotation from Art Hobson:

Quote:experiment and theory imply that unbounded fields, not bounded particles, are fundamental. This is especially clear for relativistic systems, implying that it’s also true of nonrelativistic systems.

There is plenty of evidence today for physicists to come to a consensus supporting an all-fields view.
There are no particles, there are only fields, Art Hobson, American Journal of Physics. 81, 211 (2013); doi: 10.1119/1.4789885

Please stop denying direct quotations from legitimate scientific works. I do not claim what scientists say is true, my claim is that certain things are talked about in scientific literature, therefore they are legitimate scientific concepts, including fundamental unbounded fields. Your denials are irrelevant. 

Quote:Or for anyone else.  A perfect gas is used all the time in physics, but perfect gases don't exist in reality.  You're perfectly welcome to imagine these infinitesimally small wobbles in a universal electromagnetic field, but they're neither practical nor realistic.   

No, in field theories, unbounded fields are real things, they carry energy and momentum, read the above quotation, they are believed to be the only fundamental things.

Quote:What you're suggesting is that the human mind (brain + consciousness) is capable of detecting physical phenomena that nothing else can, and that very likely nothing else ever could. 

I never claimed they can be experienced. I said they can be measured, field theories suggest certain patterns in the EM field are associated with consciousness. Not every pattern in the field is to be experienced.

Quote:I did read those articles. 

You could simply search the term to find it, as I just did.

Quote:Neither one says anything about "universal consciousness"

It does:

Quote:Pockett suggests that the EM field comprises a universal consciousness
from the same Wikipedia page that I linked.

Panpsychism is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article, however, it is mentioned in their original article published in PLOS Computational Biology 2014 impact factor 4.428

Quote:Simple systems can be conscious: A “minimally conscious” photodiode

The previous section showed that activations and direct interactions between elements are not necessary to generate a MICS. Taking into account the axioms and postulates of IIT, we can now summarize what it takes to be conscious and give an example of a “minimally conscious system,” which will be called a “minimally conscious” photodiode.
...
It is instructive to consider the quality of experience specified by such a minimally conscious photodiode.
From the Phenomenology to the Mechanisms of Consciousness: Integrated Information Theory 3.0, Masafumi Oizumi et al, PLOS Computational Biology 2014

Yes, they claim a photodiode is conscious and has an experience, and this is one of the "leading theories of consciousness" published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Please stop denying the theory and realize that my argument only depends on such things merely being talked about in the scientific literature.

Quote:It's also worth taking notice of the fact that 'universal consciousness' is listed in Wikipedia as religion, and panpsychism as philosophy.  Neither one has the faintest hint of science to them; 

They are very far from established theories, all consciousness theories are, but they are theories, of course, you can't find any scientific references on those pages.
The following 2 users Like Hussein's post:
  • Alan V, Mark
Reply

Consciousness
(04-04-2020, 10:47 PM)Hussein Wrote: No, in field theories, unbounded fields are real things, they carry energy and momentum, read the above quotation, they are believed to be the only fundamental things.

I haven't been able to understand what you've been posting about fields well enough to comment.  Are fields even complex enough to carry information?  Since they are not targeted, it seems a rather poor way to transmit information.  

Somewhere I read a scientist once say that deciphering an EEG is like trying to understand what people in a city are thinking by measuring the heat given off by the buildings.  Could that perspective apply to fields as well?

(04-04-2020, 10:47 PM)Hussein Wrote: Yes, they claim a photodiode is conscious and has an experience, and this is one of the "leading theories of consciousness" published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Please stop denying the theory and realize that my argument only depends on such things merely being talked about in the scientific literature.

Scientists have discussed all sorts of ideas about consciousness, since it's a relatively new field of study. Considering I have read discussions among philosophers about whether thermostats should be considered conscious, I think it would be helpful if you told us how "consciousness" was defined in discussions about fields.

I do agree that some philosophers and scientists take reductionistic ideas about consciousness quite seriously, but I think emergentist ideas are more promising.
The following 2 users Like Alan V's post:
  • Mark, Hussein
Reply

Consciousness
(04-04-2020, 11:42 PM)Alan V Wrote: I haven't been able to understand what you've been posting about fields well enough to comment.  Are fields complex enough to carry information?  Since they are not targeted, it seems a rather poor way to transmit information

[Image: Fibreoptic.jpg]
optical fiber

Yes, of course, they can reliably transmit information with the speed of light. Light (not just the visible spectrum) is the same as the electromagnetic field. So optical fibers essentially transmit information through the electromagnetic field.

Quote:Somewhere I read a scientist once say that deciphering an EEG is like trying to understand what people in a city are thinking by measuring the heat given off by the buildings.  Could that perspective apply to fields as well?

Indeed, the measurement of EEG is a direct measurement of the electromagnetic field (voltage, to be more accurate). The problem is, EEG measurements are easily contaminated by artifacts arising from muscle activity in the scalp or eye muscles. You can't be sure that the signal is related to the brain, there is a noise. 

In addition to that, the EEG output is the unified superposition of the field generated by all parts of the brain, it's difficult to decipher it, even if there isn't a noise. What they can do is to apply Fourier analysis and separate different frequency channels of the EEG patterns.

Quote:Scientists have discussed all sorts of ideas about consciousness.  Consciousness studies is a field which barely existed fifty years ago, but it has recently gone through rapid development.  Are the works you are referencing fairly current?

Version 3.0 of IIT was published in 2014. You can see here that many works have cited it since 2020. It can indicate that the theory is currently talked about in the literature. 

Some additional info about the status of the theory:

Quote:As of 2016, Tononi, IIT’s creator, runs the Center for Sleep and Consciousness at the University of Madison-Wisconsin. The Center has more than forty researchers, many of whom work in its IIT Theory Group. Koch, a major supporter of IIT, heads the prestigious Allen Institute for Brain Science. The Institute has links with the White House Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative, as well as the European Human Brain Project (HBP).  IIT’s body of literature continues to grow, often in the form of publications associated with the Center and the Institute. 
From here

Field theories are not widely talked about. Here is the list of scientific works that have cited Pockett's theory since 2019. Not as popular as IIT.

Quote:Considering I have read discussions among philosophers about whether thermostats should be considered conscious, I think it would be helpful if you told us how "consciousness" was defined in such discussions.

You are right, definitions are very important, some define consciousness functionally, totally ignoring the subjective aspects. But IIT, defines consciousness in terms of experience, in fact, it claims subjective experience is the only thing that can be certainly known to exist:

Quote:Intrinsic existence: Consciousness exists: each experience is actual—indeed, that my experience here and now exists (it is real) is the only fact I can be sure of immediately and absolutely. Moreover, my experience exists from its own intrinsic perspective, independent of external observers (it is intrinsically real or actual).
...
The properties required of a conscious physical substrate are called the "postulates," since the existence of the physical substrate is itself only postulated (remember, IIT maintains that the only thing one can be sure of is the existence of one's own consciousness)
Wikipedia

Quote:I do agree that some philosophers and scientists take reductionistic ideas about consciousness quite seriously, but I think emergentist ideas are more promising.

Having a background in physics, I like to think of consciousness as something fundamental, and there are very beautiful parallels between the concept of fields in physics and consciousness. This work talks about combining the idea presented in IIT and field theories, that looks promising to me.

Emergentist approaches are in fact a lot more popular compared to fundamental theories, but I think they cannot address the binding problem adequately.
The following 1 user Likes Hussein's post:
  • Alan V
Reply

Consciousness
(04-04-2020, 10:47 PM)Hussein Wrote: They are very far from established theories, all consciousness theories are, but they are theories, of course, you can't find any scientific references on those pages.
There.

Right there.

You need to stop talking about them as though they are settled matters.  They're not.  Thank you for admitting that.  All you have is a woo-ful notion that you think supports the way you want the universe to be.

When you have something concrete, then I will care.

Until then, you really need to learn the difference between theory, hypothesis, and wishful thinking.
"Aliens?  Us?  Is this one of your Earth jokes?"  -- Kro-Bar, The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
The following 2 users Like trdsf's post:
  • Cavebear, Szuchow
Reply

Consciousness
(04-04-2020, 02:50 PM)Alan V Wrote: ...
There exist many striking parallels between conscious creatures and societies, as you point out, but the question is whether such parallels are analogical or equal.  It may simply be that successful strategies in one area translate well into others, as @DLJ mentioned earlier concerning business management techniques.
...

Let me know if you want me to describe the parts of the 'Human Model' / 'Model Human' that relate to "self".  It may take some time though, because it's a chapter I haven't written yet.  

'Consciousness' however, is quite an easy one.
Reply

Consciousness
(Yesterday, 03:59 AM)DLJ Wrote:
(04-04-2020, 02:50 PM)Alan V Wrote: ...
There exist many striking parallels between conscious creatures and societies, as you point out, but the question is whether such parallels are analogical or equal.  It may simply be that successful strategies in one area translate well into others, as @DLJ mentioned earlier concerning business management techniques.
...

Let me know if you want me to describe the parts of the 'Human Model' / 'Model Human' that relate to "self".  It may take some time though, because it's a chapter I haven't written yet.  

'Consciousness' however, is quite an easy one.

There's a whole thread about that and they contend in detail...
Theists disbelieve in all deities but one.  I just disbelieve in one less.
Reply

Consciousness
(Yesterday, 12:18 AM)Hussein Wrote: ...The problem is, EEG measurements are easily contaminated by artifacts arising from muscle activity in the scalp or eye muscles. You can't be sure that the signal is related to the brain, there is a noise. 

[Image: 3-s2.0-B978012801238310889X-f10889-09-97...8290.jpg?_]

Artefact detection. An automated mask can be used to generate an
index of EEG quality and to exclude contaminated periods of EEG from
analysis. The annotation of artefact on 1 h of multichannel EEG is in
black and artefacts are in blue.



In most applications of automated EEG analysis, the length of the EEG recording permits the use of
artifact detection and rejection  rather than artifact removal. This may also be diagnostically sound as
clinical decisions based on the analysis of the EEG should be made on artifact-free EEG.
Nathan Stevenson, Anton Tokariev, in Encyclopedia of Biomedical Engineering, 2019

(BTW, the word is spelled as "artefact"  from the Latin phrase arte factum from ars=skill + facere=to make)
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 3 users Like SYZ's post:
  • Hussein, Alan V, DLJ
Reply

Consciousness
(Yesterday, 03:59 AM)DLJ Wrote:
(04-04-2020, 02:50 PM)Alan V Wrote: ...
There exist many striking parallels between conscious creatures and societies, as you point out, but the question is whether such parallels are analogical or equal.  It may simply be that successful strategies in one area translate well into others, as @DLJ mentioned earlier concerning business management techniques.
...

Let me know if you want me to describe the parts of the 'Human Model' / 'Model Human' that relate to "self".  It may take some time though, because it's a chapter I haven't written yet.  

'Consciousness' however, is quite an easy one.

I did purchase the book you recommended, and it's in my pile.  But lately I've been too distracted by coronavirus news to do any serious reading.
The following 3 users Like Alan V's post:
  • Mark, Dānu, DLJ
Reply

Consciousness
(Yesterday, 10:18 AM)SYZ Wrote: (BTW, the word is spelled as "artefact"  from the Latin phrase arte factum from ars=skill + facere=to make)

I Googled "artefact" and couldn't find support for it.  "Artifact" with an "i" can mean "something observed in a scientific investigation or experiment that is not naturally present but occurs as a result of the preparative or investigative procedure."
Reply

Consciousness
(Yesterday, 03:49 AM)trdsf Wrote: You need to stop talking about them as though they are settled matters.

It appears you still don't know what was being discussed.  Facepalm Nobody was advocating any theories and nobody claimed any theory of consciousness is established.

Anyone with a basic familiarity with modern science should know the nature of consciousness is not a settled matter.

Quote: They're not.  Thank you for admitting that.  All you have is a woo-ful notion that you think supports the way you want the universe to be.

Quote:When you have something concrete, then I will care.

I doubt you would care. From your first post, you started denying everything without any real knowledge about them, and you continue to do so, including:

1. Denial of quantum field theories by saying fields are not realistic Facepalm and citing string theory, while the string theory is not established at all 

Which is ridiculous, because field theories are at the peak of scientific accuracy, "the jewel of physics" according to Feynman.

Quote:it has been described as a theory with a level of elegance that is characteristic of one that represents a fundamental truth.
Wikipedia

2. Denial of field theories of consciousness  by saying universal consciousness is "nothing but woo" (if A->B, by rejecting B you also reject A)

While Pockett explicitly mentions in her book a universal consciousness is an implication of the field nature of consciousness

3. Denial of integrated information theory by saying panpsychism is "nothing but woo" (if A->B, by rejecting B you also reject A)

While the authors explicitly mentioned in their published paper that simple systems can be conscious, including a photodiode.

If you want to deny a scientific theory falsify it using evidence. 

Quote:Until then, you really need to learn the difference between theory, hypothesis, and wishful thinking.

I don't think I need to notice that. I only talked about scientific theories, and after many repetitions and clarifications, I no longer believe you are simply misunderstood, so I think you just feel the need to say something to imply your irrational denials have a point. They don't have any point other than demonstrating your denialism.

Quote:In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth.
Reply

Consciousness
(Yesterday, 11:42 AM)Alan V Wrote: I Googled "artefact" and couldn't find support for it.  "Artifact" with an "i" can mean "something observed in a scientific investigation or experiment that is not naturally present but occurs as a result of the preparative or investigative procedure."

It was also interesting for me, found this:

Quote:In natural science and signal processing, an artifact or artefact is any error in the perception or representation of any information, introduced by the involved equipment or technique(s).
Wikipedia

Quote:In British English, artefact is the main spelling and artifact a minor variant.[152] In American English, artifact is the usual spelling. Canadians prefer artifact and Australians artefact, according to their respective dictionaries.[153] Artefact reflects Arte-fact(um), the Latin source.[154]
Wikipedia
The following 1 user Likes Hussein's post:
  • Alan V
Reply

Consciousness
(11 hours ago)Hussein Wrote:
(Yesterday, 03:49 AM)trdsf Wrote: You need to stop talking about them as though they are settled matters.
It appears you still don't know what was being discussed.  Facepalm Nobody was advocating any theories and nobody claimed any theory of consciousness is established.
Bull.  You've been talking about these as if they're the way things are.  You're welcome to accept them as beliefs, hypotheses, whatever -- but you need to back down on your absolutes.  You cannot say there is a universal field.

Denialism?  I recommend a mirror.
"Aliens?  Us?  Is this one of your Earth jokes?"  -- Kro-Bar, The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
Reply

Consciousness
(5 hours ago)trdsf Wrote:
(11 hours ago)Hussein Wrote:
(Yesterday, 03:49 AM)trdsf Wrote: You need to stop talking about them as though they are settled matters.
It appears you still don't know what was being discussed.  Facepalm Nobody was advocating any theories and nobody claimed any theory of consciousness is established.
Bull.  You've been talking about these as if they're the way things are.  You're welcome to accept them as beliefs, hypotheses, whatever -- but you need to back down on your absolutes.  You cannot say there is a universal field.

Denialism?  I recommend a mirror.


(My bolding.)  Well you heard it that way.  Of course communication takes two parties.  Could be you heard what you expected a theist would say.  I believe he isn't who you had in mind.
"Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's. 
F. D.
The following 1 user Likes Mark's post:
  • Hussein
Reply

Consciousness
(5 hours ago)trdsf Wrote: Denialism?  I recommend a mirror.

I mentioned denialism because it appeared to me it is uncomfortable for you to accept religious concepts (such as universal consciousness and panpsychism) are being taken seriously in some legitimate scientific theories. You started attacking even the most established theories of physics and scientific quotations to reject that idea.

No offense was meant.
Reply

Consciousness
(4 hours ago)Mark Wrote:
(5 hours ago)trdsf Wrote:
(11 hours ago)Hussein Wrote: It appears you still don't know what was being discussed.  Facepalm Nobody was advocating any theories and nobody claimed any theory of consciousness is established.
Bull.  You've been talking about these as if they're the way things are.  You're welcome to accept them as beliefs, hypotheses, whatever -- but you need to back down on your absolutes.  You cannot say there is a universal field.

Denialism?  I recommend a mirror.
(My bolding.)  Well you heard it that way.  Of course communication takes two parties.  Could be you heard what you expected a theist would say.  I believe he isn't who you had in mind.
He has been coming across (to me, if you like) as presenting these things as if they are the current understanding, rather than as some hypotheses that have been floated, and then insisting that I accept them as if they were the current theories.  I am under no obligation to accept a hypothesis, and I disagree with his assertion that these metaphysical constructs are implied by them.
"Aliens?  Us?  Is this one of your Earth jokes?"  -- Kro-Bar, The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
Reply

Consciousness
(2 hours ago)Hussein Wrote:
(5 hours ago)trdsf Wrote: Denialism?  I recommend a mirror.

I mentioned denialism because it appeared to me it is uncomfortable for you to accept religious concepts (such as universal consciousness and panpsychism) are being taken seriously in some legitimate scientific theories. You started attacking even the most established theories of physics and scientific quotations to reject that idea.

No offense was meant.
No offense was taken, and I did no such thing as to deny science.  I denied your assertion that these metaphysical constructs are implied by science, not science itself, and your conflation of concepts like 'quantum field' and 'electromagnetic field' with 'conscious EM field'.  I have no problem with quantum fields and electromagnetic fields.  I do have a problem with the idea of a "field" of "universal consciousness".  Personally, I'm inclined to Douglas Hofstadter's position that consciousness is an emergent property of the complex patterns produced by the electrical currents produced in the human brain, and that without the physical layer that is the brain, there is no abstract layer we call the mind.  The idea of some sort of unified field of consciousness that exists unto itself strikes me as about as sensible as trying to run a Linux cluster on nothing but air molecules, and about as tenable as luminiferous æther theory.

Also, your attempt at logic fails because the assertion that my denial of 'B' denies 'A' is false.  B may well be false, independently of whether A is true.  Scientific proposals are not propositional logic.  Twenty five years ago, you could have said A) The universe began in a Big Bang, therefore B) the expansion of the universe is happening at a decelerating rate -- and virtually no one would have disagreed with you.  Well, funny thing, B turned out to be false but A is still valid.

And yes, I do reject as non-scientific ideas about diodes having consciousness, unless you want to reduce 'consciousness' all the way down to mean 'ability to interact with a signal', in which case consciousness ceases to have any meaning, as every interaction can then be called a conscious one.
"Aliens?  Us?  Is this one of your Earth jokes?"  -- Kro-Bar, The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)