Materialism and Consciousness.

[cgannon64]

I have a question about materialism. If I understand it correctly, the materialist viewpoint considers the human mind to be nothing more than a very, very, very complex set of rules. This is all well and good.

I'm unsure, however, of whether it explains how consciousness operates, and why it exists. From what I've read - and though it isn't much, it isn't nothing (I'm nearly done with Godel, Escher, and Bach, a pretty intersting book) - it seems that you have the laws of physics, and complex interactions between them which we can define as a new set of rules, and complex interactions between them, and so on and so forth until - bam - consciousness.

My first question is: Why exactly does consciousness arise at this point, wherever it may be?

My second question is along the same lines, and it comes from a bit of rephrasing. Put another way, the materialist viewpoint is that there is nothing but atoms, etc. obeying the laws of physics. Individual sections of the universe - say, a person - can be explained with different rules which consider a greater scale; but, in the end, there are the laws of physics, and nothing but.

My question is, then: Why would consciousness be present in one grouping of atoms obeying the laws of physics, and not another group?

A bunch of related questions are: If consciousness is something that arises out of a group of unconscious atoms, can super-consciousness arise out of a group of consciousnesses? Could the whole universe be one enormous conscious being, and our own consciousness plays only a tiny role in it, completely unaware - unconscious, you could say - of the greater consciousness?

A final question: How is this any different from a kind-of trippy monism?

(By the way, I'd just like to say that I'm not bringing this all up to try to argue against materialism - I'm not saying, "Materialism can't explain this so it's stupid" - I'm just trying to understand it better.)

 

[Souron]

Why exactly does consciousness arise at this point, wherever it may be?

The principle Idea is "I think therefore I am contious." However, it is unclear how much and what kind of inteligence is necessary for contiousness. Obviously contiousness is more than just processing power and sensory perseption, but it is unclear how much more. Some might consider this question unanswerable and therefor seek surreal answers to this question, but a materialist would not equate insufficent knowlege with an incorrect explanation.

Why would consciousness be present in one grouping of atoms obeying the laws of physics, and not another group?

Becouse the first group is aranged in a sertain way that enables it to percieve there collective existance. A collection of atoms make a system. A system can do various things. If a system has the right properties, it can be considered conscious.

If consciousness is something that arises out of a group of unconscious atoms, can super-consciousness arise out of a group of consciousnesses?

Yes. In fact the human body is offten modled to little kids as a factory, with a bunch of little people operating every organ. Simmilarly governments are frequently compaired people. To a materialist as you discribe, it does not matter what a system is made out of but what it does. If a system has the right properties, it will be conscious. Define consciousness and I'll tell you what those properties are. Mostly I'll be repeating what you say.

ould the whole universe be one enormous conscious being, and our own consciousness plays only a tiny role in it, completely unaware - unconscious, you could say - of the greater consciousness?

I don't think so, becouse in order to be aware of ones existance one would need to be aware of something else; something besides oneself. By definition, there is nothing outside the univerce. So the univerce cannot percieve the existance of anything.

That said, it is (to a materialist) theoretically possible to have consciousness that is not made from life as we know it.

How is this any different from a kind-of trippy monism?

Materialism as you define it has nothing to do with what things are made up of, only what they do. It is True that all system can be described in the same terms, but that does not make any two systems identical in substance.

If I compaire the United States to the my body I might be able to make some interesting compairisons. However that would not mean that United states and me are one and the same.

 

[Birdjaguar]

...it seems that you have the laws of physics, and complex interactions between them which we can define as a new set of rules, and complex interactions between them, and so on and so forth until - bam - consciousness.

My first question is: Why exactly does consciousness arise at this point, wherever it may be?

Consciousness
1 a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact c : AWARENESS; especially : concern for some social or political cause
2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : MIND
3 : the totality of conscious states of an individual
4 : the normal state of conscious life <regained consciousness>
5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes

I will consider the 1. definition from M-W as the one under discussion. The others, I've colored to indicate I'm ignoring them.

I don't know anything about "materialism", but I do have an opinion. Why does consciousness have to have a "point" of activation? Why couldn't it be a continuum that under some "conditions" greater self awareness begins to show up? Humans would be at the highest level we currently know about. Great apes less so, but higher than say dogs and cats, and so on down through the animal kingdom and back in time through evolution. How different in consciousness are humans and chimps or orangs? Chimps from other lesser apes and monkeys? etc. I would suggest that there is no "point" at which consciousness appears, only a level of consciousness that begins to notices itself and is able to think about that awareness.

My second question is along the same lines, and it comes from a bit of rephrasing. Put another way, the materialist viewpoint is that there is nothing but atoms, etc. obeying the laws of physics. Individual sections of the universe - say, a person - can be explained with different rules which consider a greater scale; but, in the end, there are the laws of physics, and nothing but.

My question is, then: Why would consciousness be present in one grouping of atoms obeying the laws of physics, and not another group?

Consciousness would be present in both (all) groups, but of a more limited nature. At a very basic level, say, that an atom, it has consciousness sufficient only for it to seek a particular state of stability. It "tries" to settle into such a state whenever possible. Its level of "self awareness" is only concerned about those things around it that affect it "getting to or getting away" from a stable situation. Atoms never get beyond this level of consciousness. Now collections of atoms that are organized into something more complex like a big chunky molecule have a slightly higher level of awareness and react to more complex situations and can have multiple "rest states" and reactions to neighbors. Self awareness at this level is all about charge and chemistry stuff. No voilition or choice.

Moving along to cellular life, we find that cells are sufficiently "conscious" of what is around to react to molecules and other cells around them. They don't make decisions, but the do respond in predictable ways so that life processes can happen. Collections of atoms and molecules make cells; those cells can be collected into more complex plants and animals. Cells are certainly much more "conscious" than an atom, but far less so than a plant or animal. In a complex and relatively conscious life form, the atoms never get more conscious than if alone. The cells never get more conscious than a cell alone. But the collection of lesser components when taken together has a higher level of awareness than the parts.

In humans we see the most fully aware consciouness yet. At the same time all of the components of which we are made are all of lesser consciousness. The atoms and molecules in our brains behave just like they do elsewhere. Our cells can sometimes be put in other critters bodies and thrive. Other critter's cells can also enter our bodies and thrive. Disease anyone? Blood transfusions?

This model of consciousness accounts for not only the evolution of life, but also for the build up of complexity from quarks and leptons through atoms and molecules to life itself. Consciousness is present at every level, but its "awareness" and hence ability to respond to its environment is different at every stage. I believe that it also conforms with the standard definition quoted above.

A bunch of related questions are: If consciousness is something that arises out of a group of unconscious atoms, can super-consciousness arise out of a group of consciousnesses? Could the whole universe be one enormous conscious being, and our own consciousness plays only a tiny role in it, completely unaware - unconscious, you could say - of the greater consciousness?

Good questions.

 

[aneeshm]

@ cgannon64 - looking to the sort of questions you are asking , my advise to you would be to read the first volume of the "Collected Works of Swami Vivekanand" , specially the parts about Raja Yoga and Karma Yoga .

These exact same questions are the ones that Hindu philosophers have wrestled with for a long , long time , and the theory which they came up with to explain this is beautiful , and will prove to be worth stuyding in its own right , even if you later decide to disagree ( which I doubt you will ) .

 

[Sidhe]

This problem has baffled some of the most brilliant philosophical minds for the last few centuries and science has come no closer to aanswering it. There is a reason why this particular question is given the title "the hard question", the fact is we just don't know enough about how the brain works to even hypothesise adequately atm.

http://consc.net/papers/facing.html

this link details some of the psychological issues, there are aslo plenty of web sites of neruropharmalogical issues. I have a friend who has a P.h.D in neurpharmocology and he wont go near this subject with a barge pole, because his wealth of ignorance is too high? I doubt anyone in here is qualified to answer this question. You might want to try asking God

 

[aneeshm]

Here is a link to the book I mentioned .

 

[Bozo Erectus]

The brain doesnt generate consciousness, its a gateway to consciousness. Kind of like how your computer doesnt generate the Internet, it allows you to connect to it.

 

[cgannon64]

Becouse the first group is aranged in a sertain way that enables it to percieve there collective existance. A collection of atoms make a system. A system can do various things. If a system has the right properties, it can be considered conscious.

Yes, but any border to the system is completely arbitrary. Why is my foot part of a "conscious being"? Because my consciousness can control it. Sure, but in reality that's not saying much. I can control the spoon in my hand also, but to a different degree than my foot, according to a slightly different set of rules. And there are parts of my body which I have even less control over than I would any outside object - I can't move my kidneys, for example, and I can't turn them on or off or make it work harder. So why are my kidneys part of my "conscious system"? (Also, a digression: How much truth is there to the talk of Buddhist monks being able to have extreme control over their bodily functions?)

I don't think so, becouse in order to be aware of ones existance one would need to be aware of something else; something besides oneself. By definition, there is nothing outside the univerce. So the univerce cannot percieve the existance of anything.

I disagree. Think of the prospect of conscious computer programs: some of these could very well exist in a vacuum, with no outside contact.

Consciousness is present at every level, but its "awareness" and hence ability to respond to its environment is different at every stage. I believe that it also conforms with the standard definition quoted above.

I don't think your post is, er, materialist Gospel. There is nothing wrong with it - it's just stretching the word consciousness a bit too far for my liking. Electrons are, in my opinion, definitely unconscious - for consciousness means more than obeying rules.

@ cgannon64 - looking to the sort of questions you are asking , my advise to you would be to read the first volume of the "Collected Works of Swami Vivekanand" , specially the parts about Raja Yoga and Karma Yoga .

These exact same questions are the ones that Hindu philosophers have wrestled with for a long , long time , and the theory which they came up with to explain this is beautiful , and will prove to be worth stuyding in its own right , even if you later decide to disagree ( which I doubt you will ) .

The book Godel, Escher, and Bach goes into Zen Buddhism a little bit, and it's intrigued me enough to look into it later. Thanks for the book.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, first off, when you arrange a series of atoms properly, you get an object. A brain. Scissors. That's not so tough. You need iron atoms to get scissors, but you don't have scissors if you just have iron.

Consciousness is also a process. The brain needs to be 'on' to have consciousness. Materialists think you can turn a brain off, and then turn it back on (excepting damage) and still have a brain.

Can something other than a human brain be conscious? Sure. Just like something other than scissors can cut paper. Basically, consciousness is the action that a brain will perform (when used properly) just like cutting is what scissors will do when used properly.

We also divide the brain into two parts "you" and "your body". The section of your brain controling your heart is certainly not vital to "you" - meaning, we could replace both with machines and not lose CG. But you'll also notice that the parts of your brain associated with "you" are also malleable - you can get drunk, or tired (and thus change your desired behaviour); you can gain and lose memories, and still be "you".

The brain is remarkably complex, but sometimes philosophers put too much into the questions - a lot of our behaviour is just chemicals running their courses. And so we extrapolate that ALL of our behaviour is due to chemicals running their courses.

 

[punkbass2000]

The brain doesnt generate consciousness, its a gateway to consciousness. Kind of like how your computer doesnt generate the Internet, it allows you to connect to it.

 

[Sidhe]

The brain is remarkably complex, but sometimes philosophers put too much into the questions - a lot of our behaviour is just chemicals running their courses. And so we extrapolate that ALL of our behaviour is due to chemicals running their courses.

The problem is we understand these chemicle processes and elctrical ones about as well as we understand Ancient Sandscrit. To give you an example, if you do a brain scan and various neurochemicle tests on a severely depressed or clinically depressed person then give them anti depressants such as SSRI's: prozac like drugs, then do the same tests 24 hour or so later, the brain chemistry and activity is indistinguishable from a normal subject who is of normal emotional level I.e not exhibitng those symptoms associated with depression or clinical depression. However SSRI's take 4-6 weeks to have any effect on mood: Why? There are thousands of examples of just how little we understand about both the philosophy and the actual science of brain function. That really is the tip of the iceberg, thus with current knowledge we can't scientifically propose a solution to the hard problem: and without better understanding of psychology we can't philosophically provide an answer either.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Did I get an 'Amen', Brothuh? (mops sweat from forehead, shouts into microphone) Halleluja!

Imagine if a group of bright people from a preindustrial society were presented with a computer connected to the Internet, and they were challenged with figuring out where the information was coming from. They would naturally assume that it was being generated by the computer. Almost certainly, they would never make the leap that the computer is connected to something that they cant see, by a means that they cant even concieve of. Theyd chuckle and dismiss as a crank anyone who suggested it

 

[El_Machinae]

We're learning more about the brain every day. I really do love those MRI machines. I just wish that we had more of them, and that we could get patients to release their scans for study more easily ...

MRIs make excellent lie detectors (since they can tell the difference between an 'honest' mistake and the truth - while stress-test monitors cannot) ... I wonder if we could get the US military to invest in a bunch, and then sell them second-hand when they're done with Gitmo?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

El, if you were looking directly at the brains 'wireless broadband' connection, do you think youd know it?

 

[punkbass2000]

Did I get an 'Amen', Brothuh? (mops sweat from forehead, shouts into microphone) Halleluja!

Imagine if a group of bright people from a preindustrial society were presented with a computer connected to the Internet, and they were challenged with figuring out where the information was coming from. They would naturally assume that it was being generated by the computer. Almost certainly, they would never make the leap that the computer is connected to something that they cant see, by a means that they cant even concieve of. Theyd chuckle and dismiss as a crank anyone who suggested it

Bozo descends from the knowledge tree
Henceforth known as the champignon of PC.



Mind and brain are not one.

 

[Sidhe]

El, if you were looking directly at the brains 'wireless broadband' connection, do you think youd know it?

Their are two camps one camp says we can never solve the hard problem because of various reasons one of which is that which you mentioned and the other says with enough understanding of the science behind the mind we should eventually be able to solve the problem. Neither has much more credabiltity than the other atm

 

[El_Machinae]

El, if you were looking directly at the brains 'wireless broadband' connection, do you think youd know it?

First, you're positing the existence of something that we have no evidence of.

Second, we can certainly interrupt the hardware of the brain (sometimes fataly) - whether it's a self-contained system or a broadcasting system is immaterial in that instance (just like, you can jimmy with a computer with a wireless connection to figure out how it works, or you can jimmy with a computer that doesn't have one to figure out how it works).

Third, it your theory, can we 'jimmy' with the consciousness by setting off bombs in hyperspace or something? I could certainly ruin my internet connection without affecting my laptop, and that would show that my internet-capability was more than just the laptop.

Why do you assume that consciousness is more than just a functioning brain?

 

[aneeshm]

The brain doesnt generate consciousness, its a gateway to consciousness. Kind of like how your computer doesnt generate the Internet, it allows you to connect to it.

Bingo . The brain can be considered the "anchoring point" of some entity which can be called , for the sake of convenience , ignoring its other connotations , a soul . The same way that the terminal is not the internet , the brain is not the soul . It just connects it to the body .

 

[Bozo Erectus]

El, give to God what is Gods, and to Caesar what is Caesars. The meat belongs to Caesar.

 

[punkbass2000]

Bingo . The brain can be considered the "anchoring point" of some entity which can be called , for the sake of convenience , ignoring its other connotations , a soul . The same way that the terminal is not the internet , the brain is not the soul . It just connects it to the body .

I would say it connects it to the senses. But all in all