tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22093933.post2149311863840949016..comments2024-03-28T09:41:15.454-05:00Comments on Deric's MindBlog: Are we really conscious?Deric Bowndshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16617204535017208765noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22093933.post-78329370343923595952014-11-16T07:26:59.224-06:002014-11-16T07:26:59.224-06:00Fair point. One of the issues, actually, is that w...Fair point. One of the issues, actually, is that we don't even have anything to conclude whether the show is generated by consciousness, is experienced as consciousness, is a manifestation of consciousness or is the consciouness itself. It might be even something else.Janinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22093933.post-89526114540520377642014-11-16T07:22:39.484-06:002014-11-16T07:22:39.484-06:00Jani, I think you touch upon an interesting point:...Jani, I think you touch upon an interesting point: what we are talking about is really: why is there a subjective world. Which is almost the same as saying: why is there a world?<br />The way I think about this: if there would be no experiences, there could be a world, but no one would know, so effectively, this would (for any observer) be indistinguishable from no world at all.<br /><br />Deric is also right of course: consciousness = your subjective world.<br /><br />So I think the topic at hand does matter. To put it into really down to earth terms: visual consciousness = visual experiences. Don't we want to know how to restore visual experiences for someone who has gone blind?<br /><br />Therefore I wholeheartedly disagree with the current neo-behaviorism, which basically handwaives at consciousness, and without any real evidence declares it to be insignificant, ill-defined, or easily solvable.<br /><br />Let's not be so hung up on ourselves and our theories, but let's try to really get to the bottom of this challenging mystery. And, yes, let's call out the current neo-behaviorism. IMO it's fueled by arrogance and sloppy thinking, but at any rate, let's be realistic: we are nowhere close to actually understanding why and how electrons and atoms moving around can create consciousness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22093933.post-31101312353346957442014-11-16T06:17:56.356-06:002014-11-16T06:17:56.356-06:00I think that Graziano's response would be that...I think that Graziano's response would be that your virtual reality show is not generated by consciousness, it is what we are experiencing as consciousness. Deric Bowndshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16617204535017208765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22093933.post-76721626200540188542014-11-16T05:12:06.031-06:002014-11-16T05:12:06.031-06:00I find it curious that those who claim they do ser...I find it curious that those who claim they do serious research on consciousness never state one thing: the field of research is what is apparently "out there". It's the world as we see, hear and touch it; what seems to be out there, "The World", it's actually a very intricate virtual reality show generated by consciousness. It's actually just like a dream but one difference: when awake, this dream is fed with external input from senses. It's still a dream, nonetheless.<br /><br />Therefore research that overlooks how this virtual reality show is *generated* will not be able to answer even the most basic questions about the hard problem of consciousness. And, I have never ever seen any explanation on how ordinary matter (what our brains are made of) can generate subjective virtual reality shows. Janinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22093933.post-50480083437810949182014-11-14T07:54:24.606-06:002014-11-14T07:54:24.606-06:00Yes, no you are certainly right, an emotional resp...Yes, no you are certainly right, an emotional response on my part :) Thanks for your response anyway, I really enjoy your blog, so maybe my anger is misdirected. Just to give some personal background, I'm also active in the field, and I routinely run into people who dismiss consciousness research as uninteresting, or ill-defined (yawning through presentations on this topic), while they spend their lives figuring out details of the attentional blink.<br />I'm not saying that other work is uninteresting, I'm just really dismayed by the off-handedness, and yes, arrogance, with which this topic is treated.<br /><br />Mechanistic accounts are great, but they should be well thought out and serious. Theories that essentially say "what is all this broo ha ha about consciousness, it is really just all attention/higher order thoughts/recurrency/global workspace/integrated information/etc" seem to miss the mark in my opinion.<br /><br />I'm not claiming that the "hard problem" is insolvable per se, however, I think we have to acknowledge that WE can NOT solve it now. The hard problem is currently simply a description of the state of affairs. If I give you a set of mechanistic rules/computer program, then you can calculate how the machine will react given certain input, however, it is impossible to calculate what it experiences.<br /><br />Perhaps in the end we will somehow be able to derive experiences from mechanisms, just like we can calculate output based on input + mechanisms. However, this seems like a tall order.<br /><br />My personal opinion is that this problem is still the neglected child of science. Behaviorism is officially dead, but unofficially alive and kicking. Reaction times, ERP's fMRI scans, MEG time-frequency analyses: that is all real stuff. But you: the experiencer, and your experiences: well I cannot see you, or your experiences like I can see fMRI scans, so I can just revert to fairy tales when it comes to that topic. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22093933.post-44538544880049810392014-11-14T07:41:08.540-06:002014-11-14T07:41:08.540-06:00My, my. quite the tirade…someone’s feathers have ...My, my. quite the tirade…someone’s feathers have gotten thoroughly ruffled up! - to the point of issuing a fairly invective screed. I’m pleased to have such strong sentiments expressed in a comment, because this blog doesn’t usually draw comments as interesting as yours. I don’t think anybody is claiming they have the final word, there is mainly jockeying over what might be the best guess at the moment. You might have indicated, apart from an essential Cartesian dualistic approach, to state what “the mystery of consciousness is” that you take the famous professor to lack. And, yes, the extrapolation of the basic approach at Graziano, Tononi, Metzinger, and others take is that it should be possible to create a mechanical device with consciousness, but extremely improbable anytime soon, because of the immense computational problem presented by the current impossibility of separating our consciousness from its embodiment. Deric Bowndshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16617204535017208765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22093933.post-61295748094669699372014-11-14T06:02:20.728-06:002014-11-14T06:02:20.728-06:00Not convincing at all in any way. So if I write a ...Not convincing at all in any way. So if I write a few codes of line in my matlab program that say to the matlab program "you exist and are conscious" (and how the hell would I do that anyway) then the program gains a self and consciousness? Or no wait, we just couple attention (a signal amplifier) to it, and now yes clearly, I've just created a conscious program.<br />This stuff is disappointing in many ways. 1) It shows a basic lack of understanding of what the mystery of consciousness is by a famous professor. 2) The sheepish cheering on of whatever anyone says because this person is an "authority". 3) The lack of genuine interest by many people, or to go beyond simple one liners and go into critical thinking.<br />Really, is it so easy to create consciousness? Interesting, please tell me how I have to program my computer to get a conscious entity with actual experiences. Or any other mechanical device. Please tell me how I can compute what my computer experiences right now. Please let me know why it is 'obvious' that all mammals have experiences.<br /><br />Alright, I'm pretty sure that I'll basically reach no one with these comments. Please go on with the self congratulations and the strong conviction that you can easily solve any mystery with feel good stories, as long as this story gets the stamp of approval of an "authority".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22093933.post-14288788262357367542014-11-13T15:50:33.126-06:002014-11-13T15:50:33.126-06:00Graziano could have made more clear that awareness...Graziano could have made more clear that awareness and awareness specifically of 'having a self' are totally not the same thing. Awareness can be attributed to animals that do not pass the mirror test (recognizing your own image in mirror). His model is for the more general kind of awareness or consciousness, saying it is a model that melds just the useful components of various more direct and fundamental sensory and motor inputs. Deric Bowndshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16617204535017208765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22093933.post-27018789480688773132014-11-13T09:09:11.929-06:002014-11-13T09:09:11.929-06:00It's not clear that awareness and self are of ...It's not clear that awareness and self are of the same type of thing. The self is something that develops over time is malleable (unique to humans?) and yes we treat it as something real but it is fundamentally illusory, a mental construction. Awareness on the other hand seems to be more fundamental; something contemplative/meditative practices point toward. This seems to be preverbal and more universal. Eg Tononi's workmfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02175698528151694072noreply@blogger.com