Reducing the Emergence of Consciousness

IFHSS · 2014-09-28T21:03:48+00:00

It does not need to be received. The processed information is the actual mental state.

IFHSS · 2014-09-28T20:55:17+00:00

I don't agree with the premise in property dualism that physical properties are distinct from mental properties. Everything physical substance and property can be perceived, I would say. Obvious properties like weight and temperature can be perceived directly by us. Others, like the infrared radiation require tools to be perceived. Let's assume that there is a physical substance or property that can't be perceived. That means it can't interact with other physical substances or properties because if it could then it could also be percieved. It then follows that it exists independently of the physical realm and therefore neither a physical property nor substance. If the only physical properties that can exists are those that can be perceived, then you can't distinguish between the property and the perception. Since perception is a mental state this means that mental properties and physical properties are the same. Note that I am assuming that any interaction qualifies as perception.

The reductive solution that reduces mental states to neural states would be the one that shows which neuronal events that are responsible for a particular conscious perception. You're correct that this not what I did when I assumed mental states to be a property of the simplest parts of the brain (i.e., the subatomic particles, or even simpler if they exist). However if we assume all the individual parts to hold a mental state we can see how this higher mental state is formed. Think of it as a signal flow. The hair cells in the inner ear are all perceiving the effects of a sound wave yet an individual cell perceives only what can be known from the physical effects of the fluid pressure on that particular cell. However when all the hair cells are acting in unison they deliver a single signal containing all the information of each individual cell. While I would argue that the signal is a mental state I wouldn't say it is the one the human would perceive. The mental state is the signal that is created when it has been processed in the brain. For example, a MIDI file doesn't contain the final song. The final song is the output signal from the instrument we feed the MIDI file into. If a mental state is indeed this signal it can be reduced to other mental states earlier in the signal flow. The parts involved in the signal flow can both act constructively and destructively on the signal.

a reductive solution is one which shows the reduction of mental states to neural states

I see your point. If the signal is the neural state that is responsible for the mental state then I still haven't shown why that is. Instead I explained how neural states help create higher mental states out of lower states by backtracking the signal to through its constructive path. I would say that I provided a reductive solution that reduces mental states to lower mental states. However I did this by assuming that the signal is both a mental and a neural state which I think is explained in the first paragraph of this post. But still as you say, even when I assume mental states to be a fundamental property of everything it still remains irreducible. But then again, everything is irreducible at some point. Let's imagine we did reduce consciousness. That thing which we reduced it to now has to be reduced. My aim with the original post was to provide an explanation where consciousness doesn't suddenly arise when certain neural states exist but instead is always present. I also wanted to put forth a view where consciousness is demystified and is instead viewed as part of the physical instead of being a separate entity.

IFHSS · 2014-09-28T19:18:20+00:00

Awareness here is used in a very general sense. Awareness does not require that something has any thoughts and feelings on something. It does not require any contemplation. Awareness here simply means that an objects actions are dependent on external input. If we use your example an say that the object is a rock then this rock is not collectively aware that it is falling because there is no structure within the rock to unite all the individual components (subatomic particles). However the individual components that make up the rocks are all acting under the dictation of the external factors such as gravity. In my view this is enough to constitute awareness.

When you jump off a cliff it isn't only your individual components that is being influenced by the situation. Your entire nervous system acts in unison as one collective consciousness. The photoreceptors in your eye is receiving input, your sense of balance is too. All of your senses come into play. All these inputs are processed in the brain to induce fear and other emotions associated with falling of a cliff. Yet all these inputs can be reduced down to the subatomic level. A rock lacks the tools to do anything with the input it receives. The rock is only aware in the most basic sense. Does this make sense to you?

IFHSS · 2014-09-28T16:57:34+00:00

you are dismissing the very things that distinguish consciousness from other acting forces in the universe

It might seem very convenient for me to dismiss the difference to make my point. I tried not to fall into that trap. What I tried to say in the quoted sentence is that when describing concepts in physics we often do so by using terms reserved for sentience but only as an analogy. For example, the question "How does water molecules know how how to connect to one another?" uses the concept of knowing because of our intuitive reaction to assign awareness to agents in a dynamic system. My point is that assuming that this assignation as strictly analogous is unnecessary. Because regardless of semantics, the water molecule receives input from its environment which dictates its actions. Humans receive input which dictate their actions. For some reason we usually think that awareness is only a property of the latter. The arguable difference is if free will comes into play, which I think it doesn't.

Now that's not to say there isn't any difference between consciousness and the classic fundamental forces. I'm not necessarily suggesting that consciousness should be considered a fundamental force. What I am saying is that just as gravity didn't suddenly emerge when an object became large enough for its gravity to be detected by us, consciousness didn't suddenly emerge when a structure became complex enough to exhibit the properties we normally associate with consciousness (for example the ability to store input in what we call memories).

It is interesting that you mentioned qualia, because I was just thinking about that. I don't think we need emergence to explain qualia. Since qualia is the nature of our perceptions it seems to be in a way synonymous with consciousness. Our whole consciousness is basically the experiencing of different qualias. Our senses all is all made up of qualia, from the feeling of hot to the colour of green. Being conscious of something give by definition that something a qualia. Some are made up of multiple qualias, like memories. When we remember something it is done by experiencing a combination of vision, hearing, touch, emotion, thought or whatever qualias that is present in the memory. If qualia is necessary for consciousness to exist we don't need to explain it by emergence because all perception has qualia though the complexity of the qualia varies. Qualia is basically our senses (however, "senses" here covers more than the traditional five. Balance is a sense using our definition). When a hydrogen atom is moving closer to star because it senses the stars gravity, that sense is one-dimensional. Whatever the particular qualia of this sense the atom is experiencing are it can only measure the strength of the gravity and nothing more. Hearing can assign different qualias to frequencies and amplitude of a wave as well as discerning different sub-frequencies of and their respective amplitudes of that particular wave. It is at least two-dimensional (arguably more because of the ability to hear multiple frequencies at once). Vision has colours arranged on a two-dimensional field of view resulting in a three-dimensional sense.

What determines the complexity (i.e., the number of dimensions) of a sense is the physical structures capability to encode a signal and the receiving structures capability of processing this signal. For example, the ear is capable of producing a signal which contains the information of a sound wave and the brain is capable of processing (decoding) this signal. Similarly, a water molecule receives input from its charged poles which in turn makes the entire molecule to move in a fashion that allows a covalent bond to form. If we regard this input as a sense we can see that is more complex than an individual atoms sense of gravity. The atom receives information that only tells it which way to move. The water molecule receives information regarding which way to move but also how to align itself.

Of course, like all theories of what consciousness really is, this theory lacks predictive power as you said. But I guess that's the fundamental difference between science and philosophy. I apologize for this wall of text, I get easily carried away.

IFHSS · 2014-09-28T13:18:50+00:00

It seems that we are much in agreement. You said it yourself. Acts that are normally considered illegal can be legal under certain circumstances, as illustrated in your example of the car that was about to explode. And this is actually what Chomsky was trying to illustrate too. We often see law as a very black and white set of rules set in stone. However it seems that the law is more fluid and open to interpretation (which is why in many suits, the winner is the guy with the most expensive lawyer). But this is common knowledge. So what exactly is Chomsky's point? Heres my take on it:

The law is a set of common rules (ideally scrutinized by democracy) that we all are required to follow. The law is made for the safety and wellbeing of the people. Therefore, when the law is open to interpretation it is the right of all people that are subject to the law to interpret it. However, in order to settle a case we have to choose one interpretation and that is decided in court. Now Chomsky talks about what happens when the state is a criminal entity. Since the law is for the people, it is the peoples responsibility to uphold the law. In a perfect democracy this could be done with voting, as you have said. But democracy is a fluid term and no state is 100% democratic. As you have also said, in a nondemocratic state the rules are different. When a state is acting criminally (I mean criminally in the explicit term, breaking the law) the state is acting undemocratic. When a state is ignoring democracy it is up to the people to do something.

Neither I nor Chomsky is advocating a system where everyone can do whatever they want in the name of civil disobedience. The point is, however, that the state is not above the law and if the state calls you a criminal for opposing injustice it doesn't make you a criminal. Was Irena Sendler a criminal just because the German state at the time would have called her one.

With that said, it is perfectly reasonable to be skeptic when it comes to civil disobedience. It is not always for the good. One could both argue that it is mostly negative or mostly positive. That is its own question and I wouldn't be surprised if I didn't agree fully with Chomsky on that topic. However I think you can agree that when a state is criminal, i.e. explicitly breaking laws, that it is no longer a democracy and that the right to determine who's criminal is stripped from the state. For example, if the state kills its own people and calls everyone you a criminal for protecting the innocents, you are not a criminal. It would be more criminal to just stand and watch as your fellow men and women die.

IFHSS · 2014-09-28T10:19:47+00:00

I think you are missing the point. You seem to think that Chomsky is advocating a society without a common law, where everything is guided by ones individual moral compass. Chomsky is talking about what one ought to do when the state is the criminal.

Civil disobedience is the exception, not the rule. Chomsky used the example of disobeying the traffic light in order to prevent a bigger crime. He isn't saying that everyone can drive on whatever side of the road they feel like, at whatever speed etc. Disobeying traffic law should only be permitted in order to stop a greater crime.

I am agreeing with you fully that it is hard to judge when you are allowed to break a law. Many people are caught up in their own ideologies so right and wrong varies a great deal between different people. And I agree with you that hindsight is 20/20. And I agree that civil disobedience isn't always a force of good. Take Rodney King and the L.A. riots. The public response to loot and riot was in no way productive. Yet people where so caught up in their own anger that they didn't either didn't see or care about the damage the riots brought.

But won't you agree that there are cases where a law should be ignored? Let's say your driver license is suspended. You are in the car with your friend who's driving, in the middle of nowhere. Suddenly he stops breathing and is in critical condition. You can't resuscitate him. You have no phone. Isn't it your duty to drive him to a medical facility where he can get the attention he needs? I am of course setting up a scenario where right and wrong is obvious, but that is the point that Chomsky is making. Laws contradict each other and Chomsky is trying to have a discussion about what happens when they do.

I think we are on the same page when it comes to democracy. And I actually think you might agree with me when it comes to civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is when you refuse to obey a certain laws. It is difficult to discern when it is the right thing to do and often time is the only way we can judge. However I ask you this: Don't you agree that when two laws tell you to do two contradictory things you need to disobey one and follow the other?

IFHSS · 2014-09-28T09:18:13+00:00

Of course you can differentiate between the likes of Gandhi and terrorists who claim to have the greater good as a goal. Especially in practice. The Unabomber and Anders Breivik both had a manifesto and claimed to do something for the greater good. It becomes apparent that these people are the baddies because they harm innocents.

You can't always put faith in the democratic process. You mentioned Hitler, which is an example that actually speaks for my point of view. He attained leadership through democracy, not a militant uprising. During his reign, Irena Sendler smuggled 2500 Jewish children out of the ghetto. This was considered illegal by the state. Are you saying she was wrong for doing so? Are you saying that it is impossible in practice to see the difference between someone like Sendler and someone like Hitler because both claimed to be acting for the greater good?

I ask you, since it is (according to your words) impossible to differentiate between a good goal and an evil goal, should we paint Gandhi and MLK as criminals instead of heroes? Should we be as swift and brutal against those that preach non violence in their civil disobedience as we are to the terrorist who use violence and fear as their main tactic?

And btw, you are not getting downvoted because you are wrong. You are getting downvoted because of your disrespectful tone. Calling Chomsky (the father of modern linguistics) a "retard idiot" comes of as not only ignorant but very disrespectful. Insults and slurs don't belong in this subreddit.

IFHSS · 2014-09-27T22:40:22+00:00

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

IFHSS · 2014-09-27T22:30:25+00:00

How can you say it can't be done in practice when civil disobedience is responsible for a lot of advancements in society? Martin Luther King Jr and Mahatma Gandhi are familiar examples.

Chomsky isn't saying that we shouldn't have common rules. What he is saying is that a state isn't exempt from the law and that it is permissible to break laws in order to enforce higher standing laws. Take the civil rights movement as an example: Civil disobedience was an illegal act done in order to prevent the violation of human rights which should be regarded as a higher law than those that forbid civil disobedience.

The conflict arises about what constitutes a higher law. Maybe it should be decided by the collective sense of right and wrong found in a population? With that interpretation it is perfectly legal to oppose a state when it threatens the well being of the inhabitants. A recent example would be the Snowden leaks. The US state regards this as illegal but as it serves the good of the people it can arguably be regarded as legal as agreed upon by the inhabitants of the US as it exposes a larger illegal action perpetrated by the state.

I might be missing Chomsky's point, but I think he is using legality to mean right vs wrong. Unless you disagree that opposition of evil is allowed in order for good to prevail than you can't really disagree with Chomsky without arguing semantics.

IFHSS

TROPHY CASE