Science and consciousness are necessarily incompatible?

[RJG]

P1 We have an argument that purports to demonstrate that concious decision making is false
P2 The same argument can also be applied to unconscious decision making
P3 Unconscious decision making is true
C1 Therefore, the argument must be false when applied to unoconscious decision making
Thus EITHER
C2a The argument is false
OR
C2b The argument relies on a difference between conscious and unconscious decision making
P4 No such difference has been established
C3 The argument as presented is false.

Togo, you're killing me man. This so-called "logic" has so many problems, ...so I will just part ways, and leave this discussion for you and others. Thanks for the good exercise.

[Belinda]

Intuitions, i.e. gut feelings are reasonable and non-consciously reasoned.

In a review of Damasio's The Feeling of What Happens, British psychologist Bruce Charlton gives us a visceral example:

Imagine that you're walking alone down a street one night when you see somebody that looks like they might mug you. When you spot them, your brain quickly makes predictions using perceptual information from the outside world (the identity of the scary dude) and internal emotional information (the fear you feel in response). That combination of information then gets served up to your in a physical sensation: that feeling in your gut that you need to get the hell outta there.

By attending to these feelings we get quicker with our decisions.

[Duckrabbit]

Intuitions, i.e. gut feelings are reasonable and non-consciously reasoned.

In a review of Damasio's The Feeling of What Happens, British psychologist Bruce Charlton gives us a visceral example:

Imagine that you're walking alone down a street one night when you see somebody that looks like they might mug you. When you spot them, your brain quickly makes predictions using perceptual information from the outside world (the identity of the scary dude) and internal emotional information (the fear you feel in response). That combination of information then gets served up to your in a physical sensation: that feeling in your gut that you need to get the hell outta there.

By attending to these feelings we get quicker with our decisions.

This is the kind of thing that just dismays me. Okay, so I'm walking down the street and I see someone who looks threatening (not an uncommon thing in my town). So I decide to take a turn out of his path. That is the whole story. That is what happens. Explaining how this all happens is unnecessary, it does not tell us anything not expressed by these two sentences that is at all useful, or that in fact expresses anything different. Adding scientific words is just distracting.

First it is wrong to say my brain makes predictions. People make predictions. Something may go on in my brain while I do this but that does not mean that I do not do it. Saying that my brain does it is just confusing and unnecessary. Second, saying I make predictions is not necessarily true. I saw the person then turned down a different street. Adding these extra steps gets us nowhere because we can keep adding intermediate steps indefinitely. We have to stop somewhere. Where to stop is not an exact science. It depends on various things; sometime it just comes out of our mouths a certain way. I doubt it would ever come out the way it is expressed in this quote.

I, or my brain, do not "use perceptual information from the outside world" I see the scary dude. Enough said. I do not "use internal emotional information" which you admit is just another way of saying "the fear you feel in response." Why not just say that? So I see the scary dude, I feel fear, and then? Well here it gets redundant. We have already determined that I feel fear. But now we learn that my fear combines with my "perceptual information". The result: I feel a physical sensation in my gut. Have I not already done this when I felt "fear in response"? Are there really two separate events here?

The last sentence I find very confusing. Who is attending to whose feelings? My brain attends to my feelings? Do I have to take yet another step and "attend to my feelings" before I know enough to get the hell out of there?

We invented computers and robots to mimic human thinking and behavior for purposes of expediency. Then we turn around and say: "We are just like computers!" Therefore we must also have algorithms, RAM memory, programed procedures for information processing, etc. But we are not computers. We do not need any of these things. We invented them so machines could mimic us. Not the other way around.

[Belinda]

Duckrabbit, if I had included, which I should have done, that Damasio is concerned to include intuitions as reasoned alongside the slower qua more consciously-reasoned responses, I reckon that you would not object. In other words, both intuitions and consciously-reasoned are reasoned.

'Intuition' has a bad reputation as New-Agey or otherwise poorly thought out. Damasio has scientifically explored intuition and has found that it really exists, and why intuition ability is selected for.

The anatomical foundation of Damasio's brain/mind work, is that the frontal lobes which deal with fellow-feelings are engaged in the process of human reason whether the process of reason be intuitional or conscious. I think that artificial intelligence machines lack fellow-feelings.

[Holofractal]

The Consciousness and Philosophy of a Type 1 Civilization


The human mind system works like a quantum computer so in order to function properly needs to exist within unity or wholeness otherwise information isn’t processed properly and incorrect conclusions are reached.

At its most basic level quantum reality is processed in terms of qubits, which is a unit of quantum information and is similar to a binary system where information is stored in two possible states eg 0 and 1 however qubits are different in that they can also exist as a superposition of both.

Due to the fall of man into the consciousness of the ego humanity is unable to process quantum reality effectively with most decisions based on fear instead on love. Over time trillions of incorrect quantum binary decisions were made to co-create literally an "upside down" civilization.

Then layer upon layer of complexity is added in an effort to "techno-fix" this reality without ever recognizing its underlying foundational flaws and allowing a basic restructuring.

Examples of upside down world include:

Debt based scarcity economy as opposed to a positive light based gift economy. This leads to a natural pooling of money (energy) towards the elites who forever funnel energy out of the system leading to a never ending scarcity.
Health care based upon secondary treatment with toxic chemicals as opposed to primary prevention.
Use of non-renewable fossil based fuels as opposed to alternative energies.
Exponential growth of population and the economy as opposed to stability.
Patriarchal based society as opposed to a symmetrical based society.
Widespread war and violence instead of peace.
Separation of people / ego instead of community / wholeness of the human psyche.
Mothers of children provided no financial support as opposed to bankers earning millions from the interest funneled from the masses of humanity.
Widespread degradation of the ecosystem instead of living in harmony with nature.

ebook which details the philosophy of a type 1 civilization - goo {dot} gl/a3brrw

[Rr6]

I{ verse } is a constant that exists in complement to the ever changing/transforming occupied space we identify with as various names and label ex r6 name or identity.

Science and consciousness are not incompatible. Science is the laboratory replication of what we observe in our environment and it is the putting in order the facts of those experiences.

We do not quantise or quantify quality or feelings, however, we do assign varying degrees of scale to quality's.

Fuller places evolution of humanity into two catgorys;

1) unintended resultants of human evolution,
2) intentional resultant of human evolution.

r6
[quote="Rr6"]We measure{ gauge } the physical{ properties } via instrumentation not a psychologist's judgement{ qualities } listed criteria.
We measure the quasi-physical photon indirectly via the electrons gaining or loosing of discrete amounts( quantity ) of energy.
We do not measure quasi-physical gravity{ attractive } directly.
We do not measure dark energy{ repulsive } directly.
We measure time via referencing of two or more physical events.
We deduce eternal{ absolute } truths via our experiences. Ex the can only exist five regular{ symmetrical } polyhedra irrespective of scenarios involving multiple universe's that sum-total to our finite, eternally regenerative, occupied space Universe.
We deduce a finite, cosmological heirarchy via our experiences of physical.
Universe-1: The Cosmic Hierarchy
1} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts ex concepts of God, Universe, Space, infinity etc.....
-------------line-of-demarcation---------------
2} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite, non-occupied space,
3} occupied space aka Universe.
r6[/quote]

[Sy Borg]

Rr6, well said. Former member, Obvious Leo, used to say "we mistake the map for the territory", that there's a tendency for us to mistake the models we use to try to comprehend reality for the actual noumena (not to mention how we routinely mistake phenomena for noumena).

Ultimately, models are about data compression. For instance, while hydrogen under the pressure in the core of a star fuses into helium, and this is common for all hydrogen atoms in all stars, in reality there are countless individual instances of this happening. We don't need to measure each and every instance because we know the dynamic model, yet each of those countless instances plays out slightly differently. However, we treat them as entirely uniform because we are not interested in that level of detail and subtlety. However, these nuances of reality obviously do exist, even if they are deemed unimportant by some.

Subjectively, nuance is what matters most to us. We all routinely breathe, eat, drink, excrete, sleep, and work either in conflict or cooperation with others but what matters to us is how we feel about all of it. Science has only recently started to recognise the validity of, and to seriously consider, subjectivity since the double slit experiment and more recent advances in brain mapping. It's early days yet, and maturity in this area may yet be some generations away, especially with humanity's enormous upcoming challenges.

[Rr6]

[quote="Greta"]Rr6, well said. Former member, Obvious Leo, used to say "we mistake the map for the territory", that there's a tendency for us to mistake the models we use to try to comprehend reality for the actual noumena (not to mention how we routinely mistake phenomena for noumena).
.[/quote]

Oh Good, glad I made sense to someone other than myself.

I'm not clear on this difference between phenomenon and noumena even after reading definitions. Phenomena are we observe.

Noumema are what exactly? An abstraction i.e. a metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept of those phenomena?

This is why I created my cosmic hierarchy, so that we-- I and whomever --can have clear communication by having initial set as reference for what exists that we can agree on.

1) Universe-1: The Cosmic Hierarchy
....1a} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts ex concepts of God, Universe, Space, infinity etc.....
-------------line-of-demarcation---------------
....1b} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite, non-occupied space,
....1c} occupied space aka Universe.

2) Universe-2: Occupied Space
...2a} fermions and bosons aka observed physical/energy reality
...2b} gravity
....2c} dark energy

So #2 connects back to 1c. If I am to include feelings or qualities of feelings of pain, happiness sadness etc....into my hierarchy I have not yet thought about where to do that.

Pain is resultant of occupied space interactions. All of qualities stem from our occupied space experiences.

Without experience there can be no quality of that experience. Because were humans, we can go to the next level metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/conceptualizing the mathematical degrees of a quality, whereas, other animals do not appear to have the ability to ascribe degrees of these qualities.

That's plenty of food for thought. Is it science? Is it compatible with science? Consciousness occurs with all animals. Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts occurs to the most degree with humans. That last is to partially clarify my definition of consciousness.

Consciousness stems from occupied space, and humans connect to 1a more than any other biological life.

r6

[Belinda]

Rr6 wrote:

Noumema are what exactly? An abstraction i.e. a metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept of those phenomena?

I don't believe in noumena because unless an entity is an entity for itself there is nothing to differentiate it except its phenomenal appearances to consciousnesses.

[Rr6]

Noumema are what exactly? An abstraction i.e. a metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept of those phenomena?

This is why I created my cosmic hierarchy, so that we-- I and whomever --can have clear communication by having initial set as reference for what exists that we can agree on.

"U"niverse: The Cosmic Hierarchy
....1a} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept ergo concepts of God, Universe, Space etc.....
........spirit-1 aka spirit-of-intent........

-----line---of---demarcation---------------------------------------------------

...1b} macro-infinite non-occupied space aka metaphysical-2

....1c} finite, occupied space Universe aka UniVerse

2) Universe: Occupied Space aka God, Cosmos, UniVerse etc....

....2a} fermions and bosons
......aka observed physical/reality aka spirit-2.........

......2b} gravity
...........aka quasi-physical or metaphysical-3 and spirit-3......

......2c} dark energy
.........aka quasi-physical or metaphysical-4 and spirit-4...........

So #2 connects back to 1c. If I am to include feelings or qualities of feelings of pain, happiness sadness etc....into my hierarchy I have not yet thought about where to do that.

Pain is resultant of occupied space interactions. All of qualities stem from our occupied space experiences.

Without experience there can be no quality of that experience. Because were humans, we can go to the next level metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/conceptualizing the mathematical degrees of a quality, whereas, other animals do not appear to have the ability to ascribe degrees of these qualities.

That's plenty of food for thought. Is it science? Is it compatible with science? Consciousness occurs with all animals. Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts occurs to the most degree with humans. That last is to partially clarify my definition of consciousness.

Consciousness stems from occupied space, and humans connect to 1a more than any other biological life.

r6

[Citizensearth]

Late to the party with a reply to original question, but my take is that consciousness primarily makes sense in a dualist framework, and when you try to shove it into a monist, and specifically physicalist (common in science) framework, weird things happen like scientists announcing they've found a part of the brain that does consciousness, or really ridiculous equivocation of the word 'conscious' where it means awake-ness one minute and something quite metaphysical the next. My position is that consciousness has thoroughly dualist roots as a concept and that if you're going to adopt physicalist assumptions you should probably just not use the term and instead simply refer to observations about brain and behaviours, at least when conducting testing of specific hypothesis and other pure science. That's just my take, I realise others have discussed issues related to that too here, so apologies for being a little late to the party.

[Mgrinder]

Late to the party with a reply to original question, but my take is that consciousness primarily makes sense in a dualist framework, and when you try to shove it into a monist, and specifically physicalist (common in science) framework, weird things happen like scientists announcing they've found a part of the brain that does consciousness, or really ridiculous equivocation of the word 'conscious' where it means awake-ness one minute and something quite metaphysical the next. My position is that consciousness has thoroughly dualist roots as a concept and that if you're going to adopt physicalist assumptions you should probably just not use the term and instead simply refer to observations about brain and behaviours, at least when conducting testing of specific hypothesis and other pure science. That's just my take, I realise others have discussed issues related to that too here, so apologies for being a little late to the party.

The hypothesis of the OP is that whenever a particle changes state, a calculation involving qualia must be performed, and these primal qualia are the forerunners of our own experiences. Our human experiences involve memories, a sense of self, and sense data, and it is supposed that this only happens with complicated molecular interactions in living cells.

That gives conscious a role in nature- says what it does, what its there for.

It says less about how conscious compares to other things in nature, like space and mass. In fact it seems most consistent with some sort of "immaterial" thing, since we don't observe these calculations and they would seem to take no energy. So this hypothesis seems almost consistent with dualism. But it's not dualism or materialism or emergent isn or any of the traditional theories of the mind.

[Burning ghost]

What is "primal qualia"?

[Mgrinder]

What is "primal qualia"?

An experience that doesn't reference memories, or a sense of self, or sense data from an organ(like the sense data we get from our eyes.)

It's like an atom in a rock changes state, due to a thermal fluctuation or something, and before it can change state, it must calculate via qualia. So it has an experience of something, what is this like?

It would be like experiencing the color grey for the very first time, except you can't compare grey to anything else, because this is the first time you've ever experienced anything at all. You have no memories, see? The particle has probably had this same qualia billions of times while it's been in the rock, but it can't remember it. Plus it has no sense of self, or the ability to reference the qualia and compare it to sense data from an organ like the eye or the ear. The first time a baby has an experience, at least it can compare it to some information provided by its brain that was laid down by its genetics. No such like for an atom of silicon in a rock.,.

What's that like to experience? Raw qualia, primal qualia, how else can you say it? It's not what we experience.

Anyways, I talk about all this in my essay...

Just to add... It would be a bit like experiencing something completely novel, something not even close to what you are used to. Then you die immediately afterwards. Heh. Except you can't even compare it to other experiences.

[Consul]

Intuitions, i.e. gut feelings are reasonable and non-consciously reasoned.

The "gut feelings" resulting from anxiety or mood disorders are very unreasonable.

-- Updated July 11th, 2016, 9:27 pm to add the following --

My position is that consciousness has thoroughly dualist roots as a concept and that if you're going to adopt physicalist assumptions you should probably just not use the term and instead simply refer to observations about brain and behaviours, at least when conducting testing of specific hypothesis and other pure science. That's just my take, I realise others have discussed issues related to that too here, so apologies for being a little late to the party.

Nobody denies that there is a conceptual dualism between psychological or phenomenological concepts and physical ones. The question is what the ontological implications of this conceptual dualism are.