Fear of death.

just because we could never (?) possibly map out the complex of neural activity in the brain and correlate with any exactitude to mental events doesn't mean that mental events don't have a physical basis.

can i prove this? not exactly. although experimental neuroscience can demonstrate stuff like which neural networks correlate to certain aspects of cognition (and hence experience).

but i'm not sure it needs to be "proved" in the impossible sense you seem to call for to be convinced.

there's an argument for consciousness, intelligence, emotions etc... being an emergent property of sufficient complexity but i dunno. I think it only appears that way because we describe these things in such mushy terms, so of course you need a fair amount of mush and slop to cover all the bases. maybe to meet a properly bounded, minimal definition of consciousness you would only need 3 dice and some twine.

well sure it's a hypothesis. but even if consciousness were a product of a less complex series of neural interactions it doesn't change the likely fact that every "thought" is an effect (not a "consequence," which would seem to presume some _other_ thing "processing" the interactions) of such activity.

Saying that your proto creature is not aware just pushes the problem higher up the chain - the problem of where this magical meaning-ascribing entity comes from.

― ledge, Friday, July 13, 2012 11:36 AM (18 minutes ago)

i think the problem is that we want to treat the self-possessing, seeming-perceiving consciousness as a magical kind of thing. given how little we know about it, it's hard not to do this, but i'm more inclined to treat it as nonmagical. i suspect that the conscious is an evolved product of the need to manage many overlapping layers and patterns of non-conscious information processing. for instance: a simple creature has a damage sensor and an aversion mechanism. a more complex creature has a subroutine dedicated to "sensing" different sorts of pain and selecting an appropriate response. an even more complex creature needs networks of networks that can coordinate an impossibly vast array of information types, the complexities within complexities branching out towards infinity. at this level of complexity, it makes sense to dumb things back down by subordinating all that infernal cognitive complexity to a decider whose only job is to simply feel the general tenor of the whole and just say "ow" when necessary.

a theory: i suspect this is why evolution has placed a final, conscious arbiter at the top of the cognitive decision tree. the arbiter's job is to make moment-to-moment simple sense of deep processes about which it knows very little. rather than deal with the fantastically complex "machine language" of the body, the arbiter instead can simply coordinate the informed decisions made by countless neurological and cognitive subsystems. it has access to libraries of stored memory and highly flexible symbolic coding systems which it can use to measure the present set of environmental circumstances and internal urgings against others experienced in the past. its job is to know things about the self and to make sense of information provided by the brain and body. its job is, in a sense, to be aware. is it any surprise, then, that it actually is aware? that it does "know things" and "feel things"?

this is us. it's what we are. there's nothing magical or non-material about it. we're the workings of the top-level computer whose job it is to know things and make decisions about the rest of the system.

that is beautifully explained, contenderizer. much clearer than a host of books i've read recently.

of course the question of what we _do_ with such knowledge--whether it is of any real consequence in "coming to terms" with our mortality--is still open....

definitely makes blade runner even more resonant than it once was, that's for sure...

i think that's very poorly explained tbh

it's a big hand-wave-y analogy substituting familiar material things (damage sensors, computers) for unfathomable things you're not grappling with

i mean you could just substitute "a tiny little green man sitting in a cockpit in my head" for "a computer" and the construction of that paragraph would be as logically sound, except we "know" that computers exist and elves don't, which makes the argument seem very reasonable and reassuring

thanks, amateurist. to put it way more simply...

in evolutionary terms, "top down" holistic awareness is a development that allows for overall decision-making to remain relatively efficient while information gathering, storage and coordination systems proliferate in complexity. of course i can't prove this, but it makes sense and seems likely to me. it's why i'm surprised by the argument that consciousness is inexplicable and perhaps even trans-physical.

of course, that's a "why is consciousness?" argument, and not a "what is consciousness?" one, but i think the two questions are probably related. of course, it's possible that consciousness arises not due to evolutionary pressure, but by other means and/or for other reasons. or maybe god made it, i dunno...

the tiny electrical charges and other physical events are the stuff of consciousness (insofar as consciousness emerges from a certain density of such activity

To me this is just like saying "plant enough apple trees and you're sure to get an orange".

timeout -- do you guys consider pre/non-linguistic thought as conscious or un/sub-conscious?

it's why i'm surprised by the argument that consciousness is inexplicable and perhaps even trans-physical

i'm not arguing for that and i don't think anybody's offered any evidence for it either! i would call it more of an intuition?

i think your computer / machine language / information procesing stuff is straight medieval argument from analogy

great question philip

i mean you could just substitute "a tiny little green man sitting in a cockpit in my head" for "a computer" and the construction of that paragraph would be as logically sound, except we "know" that computers exist and elves don't, which makes the argument seem very reasonable and reassuring

well, i think it's a bit more substantive than that. i'm really just talking about systems dedicated to the collection and processing of information - systems for which computers are a good metaphor, but which have existed in biology for a lot longer than computers, people or even (probably, according to me) awareness.

it may well be that the handy model of computer-type programming and data processing is misleading, that it distorts our sense of how biological cognition and consciousness really work, but i don't see much evidence of that at present. therefore, i'm inclined to use the model until it proves decisively unfit.

The argument from analogy is just as strong or as weak as the resemblance between the things analogized. The fact that it was employed by medieval thinkers is unsurprising. Everyone uses it.

timeout -- do you guys consider pre/non-linguistic thought as conscious or un/sub-conscious?

I think much more thought is non linguistic than is commonly supposed. Perhaps most of it. So it can be conscious, no problemo.

i don't think it's a medieval theory but there's a lot of evidence to show that's not the way it works. for example, the reflexes we have bypass the round trip of executive pain decision-making, and rightfully so, or we'd be burning ourselves on stovetops for longer than necessary.

re: if the non-linguistic thought is conscious, wouldn't we be able to notice it?

timeout -- do you guys consider pre/non-linguistic thought as conscious or un/sub-conscious?

― Philip Nunez, Friday, July 13, 2012 2:41 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i don't suspect language (in the expansive sense) is a prerequisite for consciousness. i imagine there are forms of reasoning and (self-)representation characteristic of animals with much less complex neural systems that probably grant them something like conscious experience.

xpost what ledge says. keep in mind that some humans lack the capacity for language but still exhibit behaviors that suggest conscious self-awareness.

and there's nothing wrong with argument by analogy. in fact it's arguably a basic component of animal reasoning!

here's a neat trick, try to de-linguify some aspect of your awareness, and i think you'll find it drops into the unconscious realm, and suddenly you'll have lost 5 minutes.

if the non-linguistic thought is conscious, wouldn't we be able to notice it?

Dogs have no language in the sense you are using the term. They give every appearance of being conscious.

there's nothing wrong with argument by analogy?!?

why wouldn't dogs have language?

I guess I was wrong about how you were using the term.

plants which are not watered wither and die like unfed men and those that are watered tend to grow plump and full. likewise, cutting the roots of a tree will cause it to wither. therefore we can conclude the sustenance of the plant is from water and soil and it is from water and soil that it gains the raw materials of growth.

that's argument by analogy

it's your classic "as above, so below" type of move

The argument from analogy has utility, in that it is predictive in many cases and prediction is very useful. It does not aspire to mathematical precision.

the plant analogy provides a pragmatically useful view of the systems involved. especially when you factor in sunlight, pollinating insects and nutrients in the soil. all of which can be understood by means of analogy to other systems. argument by analogy is only a problem when the analogy breaks down, or when it is pushed past the points of actual correspondence. up to that point, it can be extremely useful.

Like if you thought of a store as a brain, and it was constantly adjusting prices, moving around inventory, restocking areas, cleaning, had bustling employees that make store related actions, and then assumed once that store was out of business that all of that specific store's inner functions kept happening for eternity afterwards or just without purpose, why would you think that?

― Evan, Friday, July 13, 2012 12:26 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

You may have no understanding of the inner functions, but you frame it all within the idea that they stop when the store stops.

― Evan, Friday, July 13, 2012 12:27 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Your thoughts, late great?

i'm not saying "the brain is like a computer, and a computer works this way, so therefore..."

instead, i'm saying that we should think about the ways in which evolution might have guided biological information gathering and processing systems toward something like consciousness (and noting certain similarities to computer programming in passing). i stress the mechanics of biological evolution since that theory provides the best scientific framework for thinking about the nature of biological systems. and until i have reason to think otherwise, i'm inclined to consider consciousness primarily as a biological phenomenon.

xpost none of which provide sustenance or mass a seed needs to become a redwood tree!

i don't think of the brain as a store, i would only think of the brain as a store if i needed an example-by-analogy to try to convince someone that at some point "the store closes" and "the employee leaves"

timeout -- do you guys consider pre/non-linguistic thought as conscious or un/sub-conscious?

this is a good question, but it opens up so many others. so far, i've been treating the "machine" and "assembly" languages of the body and brain as non-conscious cognition, a soup of in-out/stimulus-response processing that the conscious mind sits atop and both plumbs and guides. it seems possible to me that conscious awareness could predate the development of language. it also seems possible that there are parts of our consciousness - perhaps i should say "parts of our body's consciousness" - that are inacessible to "us". hell, the brain might house several different consciousnesses, each alien to the next. the continuity of self might itself be an illusion.

contenderizer i don't want to come off like a jerk but there are a few things in your last post i don't get

the ways in which evolution might have guided

huge warning buzzer

noting certain similarities to computer programming in passing

you sly dog

i stress the mechanics of biological evolution since that theory provides the best scientific framework for thinking about the nature of biological systems

uh whut

xpost none of which provide sustenance or mass a seed needs to become a redwood tree!

well, sure they do. processes like photosynthesis and nutrient extraction provide the seedling with what it needs in order to grow into a sapling, and the sapling into a tree.

water and soil? nope.

the continuity of self might itself be an illusion.

this book isn't as great as one might hope, but it makes a version of this argument: http://www.amazon.com/Self-Illusion-Social-Creates-Identity/dp/019989759X

the late great, what is your problem with the phrase "the ways in which evolution might have guided"

is it the word "guided"? i agree that suggests a kind of agency that the processes of evolution cannot have.

but i do think it is best to understand the functioning of the brain as essentially adaptive. even if the specific form it takes can produce maladaptive aspects and a fuck ton of exaptations that can't be "explained" in terms of evolution.

when we speak of the way that evolution "guides" the development of biological systems, we are using a common personification to get across a (hopefully) familiar idea. environmental pressures inadvertently "select for" and "select against" (yes, again) certain traits, in the long run shaping biological systems to their environment. my suggestion is that top down cognition - something like awareness - is a characteristic that has probably been selected for. given what we know about biological life, this seems a reasonable hypothesis, though it's by no means proven.

in saying that evolution is the "best scientific framework for thinking about the nature of biological systems", i did not mention that i was talking specifically about the factors that have caused biological systems to be as it seems they are. i sort of hoped that would be clear. evolution is a big part of how we talk about this: the forces that have caused biological systems to assume their present structure and seeming "purpose".

the problem w/ that thinking is that the process of evolution is not clear to us nor does it have a beginning and end

it does not shape biological systems to their environment, because the environment can change much more rapidly than animals can

you can't just look at an animal (or plant or whatever) in an environment and say "well, that animal must have evolved to fit this niche" and work backward

and another key point is that we're not evolved to match our environment but rather just to pass on genes most successfully in a particular environment

it's very tempting to look at things and look at their environment and then try to figure out how they might have evolved to match that environment but that's not actually how the science of it works

water and soil? nope.

― the late great, Friday, July 13, 2012 1:19 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

well, plants do need water. and they do draw nutrients from the soil. if we're bogging down in where the bulk of a plant's nutrient intake does in fact come from vs. the conceptions of some strawman medieval farmer, then it's time to prune this tangent. we fault an analogy because it it bad, not because analogies are bad in general.

if i were trying to prove something by saying, "no, look, the mind is just like a computer, see?" and then going into specifics about the nature of computers, then you'd have a point. as it is, i'm at a bit of a loss about why you're hammering this.

proof dogs have language
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui9Mm63zpfE&feature=related

xpost

jesus christ man, we fault analogies because they're not deductive tools

how are you NOT saying "the mind is just like a computer" on this thread is what i want to know

pretty sure my dog has an immortal soul, i see it when i look in his eyes

it's very tempting to look at things and look at their environment and then try to figure out how they might have evolved to match that environment but that's not actually how the science of it works

umm, yes it is. that's at least part of it, and it's exactly what darwin was doing. ideally what we do is to look at the record of changes in environment and see how and in what way they correspond to changes in biology, but both approaches are part of a scientific approach. the former helps us generate hypotheses, and the latter helps us test them.

holy shit man you need to go back to your biology books

btw i just wanted to address something that popped up for a second upthread

http://livelovelearnbreathe.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/i-do-believe-in-magic.jpg

seriously dude, i don't really know how else to put it. you just opened a gigantic can of rong.

i think it's not really on topic anyway though

The song "Okay, Let's Talk About Magic" just came on my shuffle.

late great I can't tell if you understood my store analogy with your response.