• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is consciousness irreducible to physical reality?

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Suspended
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
64,076
Reaction score
62,238
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The potential irreducibility of a human consciousness and its implications.

Short: We can understand the relation of abnormalities in the brain to self-described subjective impressions by a conscious person (read everything Sacks wrote if that interests you; a truly brilliant and compassionate man). We can measure brain activity during the subjective experience of various states.




What we cannot, and I suspect will not ever be able to understand, is how precisely it is that the movement of electrons, blood, and so forth, around the organic set of circuits that is the brain produces consciousness and precisely what it is that the stuff of consciousness consists in.

Consciousness is affected by objects and events describable by physical laws. But it itself is entirely unaffected by physical laws. It is unbounded. It's only apparent physical constraint is that one's own consciousness appears - in a bizarre non-physical way (if you think about it) - to be rooted just behind one's own eyeballs. But even that can be altered by drugs, by traumatic experiences, in dreams, and so forth.

"What is consciousness" may be as utterly irreducible as "what is mass-ness" and "what is energy-ness". (If one here raises string theory, which explains what is mass-ness and what is energyness, I then respond: What is string-ness? What is the stuff of strings?)

Or, will we eventually be able to reduce it to some further (itself irreducible?) part? And what will that mean?

And should we start thinking really carefully about sending a bunch of electrons through some silicon wafers when we don't know why it is that doing the same thing through neurons produces you and me?
 
There isn't really a viable alternative.

Until someone proves otherwise, physics is causally closed. When we feel pain, specific neurons are firing, and that's a physical event. The energy required to spark that reaction cannot appear out of thin air, without violating a full complement of conservation laws of physics.

We don't understand how the brain produces qualitative experiences ("qualia," in standard philosophical jargon). The fact that we do not understand this today is wholly insufficient to conclude that we will never understand it, or to say "every physical object in the universe must obey the laws of physics... except this bunch of neurons over here. Not those ones, just these ones."

We could posit (as Chalmers etc often do) that there is some extra non-physical property associated with physical objects, which somehow magically generates experiences. This theory is, to put it mildly, rife with problems. One is that these non-physical properties cannot be causally effective (see above), and yet few would say that the experiences of pain or pleasure, or the experience of viewing an object, does not motivate humans. Another is that it fails to explain why certain objects have consciousness, and others do not (e.g. why is it only neurons and axons, and the electrons currently inside a brain, that produce consciousness?) The list goes on. A third is that we'd have to provide a theory for why these properties are not observable from a physical perspective.

Along similar lines (as you hinted), we do not know how to reconcile gravity and quantum mechanics. Many theoretical attempts lead to blind alleys or unfalsifiable propositions. We do not, on that basis, proclaim the existence of a fundamentally non-physical ontological realm.

We should also keep in mind that one reason we have a tough time figuring this out is because we have, for very good reasons, moral restrictions on experimenting directly on living human brains. As a result, it's going to be quite some time before we figure it out.
 
"What is consciousness" may be as utterly irreducible as "what is mass-ness"....
Mass is not an elemental particle. It can be further analyzed. To incredibly oversimplify: It is most likely the interaction of subatomic particles with a Higgs field.


and "what is energy-ness". (If one here raises string theory, which explains what is mass-ness and what is energyness, I then respond: What is string-ness? What is the stuff of strings?)
Go study string theory, and then you tell us. ;)

More to the point, you're conflating an ontological condition (reducing a part of physical reality to its most elemental components) with an epistemic one (how do we explain this in an intelligible fashion)? I.e. just because it's difficult to efficiently explain string theory without a huge wealth of knowledge, and relying on advanced mathematics, does not mean "reality is irreducible."


should we start thinking really carefully about sending a bunch of electrons through some silicon wafers when we don't know why it is that doing the same thing through neurons produces you and me?
1) Too late.

2) No.

There's no indication that modern computers are conscious. I'd say any theory that leads you there ought to be highly suspect.
 
The potential irreducibility of a human consciousness and its implications.

Short: We can understand the relation of abnormalities in the brain to self-described subjective impressions by a conscious person (read everything Sacks wrote if that interests you; a truly brilliant and compassionate man). We can measure brain activity during the subjective experience of various states.




What we cannot, and I suspect will not ever be able to understand, is how precisely it is that the movement of electrons, blood, and so forth, around the organic set of circuits that is the brain produces consciousness and precisely what it is that the stuff of consciousness consists in.

Consciousness is affected by objects and events describable by physical laws. But it itself is entirely unaffected by physical laws. It is unbounded. It's only apparent physical constraint is that one's own consciousness appears - in a bizarre non-physical way (if you think about it) - to be rooted just behind one's own eyeballs. But even that can be altered by drugs, by traumatic experiences, in dreams, and so forth.

"What is consciousness" may be as utterly irreducible as "what is mass-ness" and "what is energy-ness". (If one here raises string theory, which explains what is mass-ness and what is energyness, I then respond: What is string-ness? What is the stuff of strings?)

Or, will we eventually be able to reduce it to some further (itself irreducible?) part? And what will that mean?

And should we start thinking really carefully about sending a bunch of electrons through some silicon wafers when we don't know why it is that doing the same thing through neurons produces you and me?

I don't accept that what we call 'consciousness' is physically irreducibly complex or that it is not subject to physical laws. The outputs from 'consciousness' maybe appear 'subjectively chaotic' but, I believe that the mechanisms of that process can and will be understood and will act according to physical laws. The analogy that I would use in this context is that we fully understand the processes and rules of football but we can never exactly predict the result of a single game or a season of games. What we may have to face is that just as mathematical models in Physics are approximations of reality, then we will only be able to make predictions within margins of error based upon our knowledge of 'consciousness'.
 
I don't accept that what we call 'consciousness' is physically irreducibly complex or that it is not subject to physical laws. The outputs from 'consciousness' maybe appear 'subjectively chaotic' but, I believe that the mechanisms of that process can and will be understood and will act according to physical laws. The analogy that I would use in this context is that we fully understand the processes and rules of football but we can never exactly predict the result of a single game or a season of games. What we may have to face is that just as mathematical models in Physics are approximations of reality, then we will only be able to make predictions within margins of error based upon our knowledge of 'consciousness'.

You think that is how He constructed it? Why did He have consciousness follow physical expression instead of making us think before act? ;)
 
You think that is how He constructed it? Why did He have consciousness follow physical expression instead of making us think before act? ;)

Who or what is 'He'?
 
The potential irreducibility of a human consciousness and its implications.

Short: We can understand the relation of abnormalities in the brain to self-described subjective impressions by a conscious person (read everything Sacks wrote if that interests you; a truly brilliant and compassionate man). We can measure brain activity during the subjective experience of various states.




What we cannot, and I suspect will not ever be able to understand, is how precisely it is that the movement of electrons, blood, and so forth, around the organic set of circuits that is the brain produces consciousness and precisely what it is that the stuff of consciousness consists in.

Consciousness is affected by objects and events describable by physical laws. But it itself is entirely unaffected by physical laws. It is unbounded. It's only apparent physical constraint is that one's own consciousness appears - in a bizarre non-physical way (if you think about it) - to be rooted just behind one's own eyeballs. But even that can be altered by drugs, by traumatic experiences, in dreams, and so forth.

"What is consciousness" may be as utterly irreducible as "what is mass-ness" and "what is energy-ness". (If one here raises string theory, which explains what is mass-ness and what is energyness, I then respond: What is string-ness? What is the stuff of strings?)

Or, will we eventually be able to reduce it to some further (itself irreducible?) part? And what will that mean?

And should we start thinking really carefully about sending a bunch of electrons through some silicon wafers when we don't know why it is that doing the same thing through neurons produces you and me?

Electrons through neurons produce you and over silicon they bring out the it. Which of the two of you has the deeper feelings, I will never know.
 
You would prefer calling Him by another name?

Is it your Christian god that you are talking about? If so, why? What has it got to do with this discussion? Aside from you trying to jemmy it into the debate that is.
 
Is it your Christian god that you are talking about? If so, why? What has it got to do with this discussion? Aside from you trying to jemmy it into the debate that is.

You really do not see the connect between the question of 'irreducibilty of human consciousness' and the Mysteries? How absolutely astounding.
 
You really do not see the connect between the question of 'irreducibilty of human consciousness' and the Mysteries? How absolutely astounding.

I'm afraid that your posts have become irreducibly ridiculous. You are able to say what you mean aren't you?
 
I'm afraid that your posts have become irreducibly ridiculous. You are able to say what you mean aren't you?

I did.

But as I note, you might need some time to think about it. But take as much as you do.
 
I did.

But as I note, you might need some time to think about it. But take as much as you do.

Welcome to my list, enjoy your stay.
 
Back
Top Bottom