Question on physical laws and consciousness

[Jub]

Hey Luke, you're repeating yourself again. Your argument and demands to be provided with something that doesn't exist don't get any stronger with repetition. I'm not the only person having issues with understanding you and I don't care to do this any more.

[Luke Skywalker]

something that doesn't exist

So now qualia doesn't exist, right after you blasted me for falsely thinking I asserted as such, and right after you posted neuroscientific research on the very subject?

You are in way over your head, and despite your advanced age, you know nothing. Good day.

[Simon_Jester]

No, you stupid overbearing screeching schoolboy-with-delusions-of-grandeur, the explanation you demand does not exist. Not in the format you want. And when people patiently explain to you, writing whole pages of detailed, informative material, on why it does not exist... you ignore them. You assume that they CANNOT UNDERSTAND YOUR GENIUS. When in fact the only single common feature between all the people who have failed to understand you is... you.

At the final analysis, you are the reason others cannot present you with an acceptable argument. Because you refuse to recognize them when you see them. Because you will not comply with the most basic requests. Because you insult and berate nearly every person who even speaks to you and assume that their detailed expert knowledge of the field takes second place to your half-informed Wikipedia knowledge. And to the false conclusions you've jumped to based on your own misunderstandings of that 'knowledge.'

And since you have rejected my request that you state your own position clearly, so that meaningful discussion could begin, which is the most basic thing that a person with any intellectual worth could ever be asked to do... you're not worth my time, either. Certainly not after you took my posts and tried to dissect them into this half-assed quote spaghetti in which you quite clearly decided to ignore my overall point and didn't even consider actually, you know, trying to get your attitude back into check. Like I basically begged you to do because watching you self-destruct is painful.

I feel sorry for you, kid. You're so proud of the theoretical intellectual potential you might possess that you're utterly wasting and pissing on this potential by refusing to use it to, you know... actually learn anything.

[Luke Skywalker]

No, you stupid overbearing screeching schoolboy-with-delusions-of-grandeur, the explanation you demand does not exist. Not in the format you want. And when people patiently explain to you, writing whole pages of detailed, informative material, on why it does not exist... you ignore them. You assume that they CANNOT UNDERSTAND YOUR GENIUS. When in fact the only single common feature between all the people who have failed to understand you is... you.

Simon_Jester, I don't know why you think either your age or your seniority in registering for an internet forum somehow convey on your authority in matters of science, but every single argument that was provided has been addressed on multiple occasions.

The difference is, here you don't make any specific warrants or claims: you vaguely say "everything you say has been thoroughly debunked."

Now, notice how you can copy-paste this assertion to any debate, and it would be just as valid, because it produces no evidence, and only vaguely references the evidence that is already there. But that's not enough. You'd have to link your evidence to what it's supposed to say or refute, and do it line by line, rather this vague declaration of victory.

At the final analysis, you are the reason others cannot present you with an acceptable argument. Because you refuse to recognize them when you see them. Because you will not comply with the most basic requests. Because you insult and berate nearly every person who even speaks to you and assume that their detailed expert knowledge of the field takes second place to your half-informed Wikipedia knowledge. And to the false conclusions you've jumped to based on your own misunderstandings of that 'knowledge.'

Your me-tooing here is quite pathetic. All of these vague declarations of my mistakes could be copy-pasted to any argument because it literally has no substance or supporting evidence whatsoever. Just stating that evidence has "already been provided" is a futile effort; you could say that about any debater in any debate and then declare victory.

And since you have rejected my request that you state your own position clearly, so that meaningful discussion could begin, which is the most basic thing that a person with any intellectual worth could ever be asked to do... you're not worth my time, either. Certainly not after you took my posts and tried to dissect them into this half-assed quote spaghetti in which you quite clearly decided to ignore my overall point and didn't even consider actually, you know, trying to get your attitude back into check. Like I basically begged you to do because watching you self-destruct is painful.

I feel sorry for you, kid. You're so proud of the theoretical intellectual potential you might possess that you're utterly wasting and pissing on this potential by refusing to use it to, you know... actually learn anything.

Simon, I am quite more intelligent than you, and really have no need for your lectures or preachings. If you wished to participate in this thread, you would have actually debated the subject matter instead of trying to pretend you're my father or something. When you tried to dip your hand, you presented numerous elementary logical fallacies and repeated tired old strwamans on subjects that you had no expertise on.

You are a fucking idiot.

[Jub]

Enjoy your empty thread child. I doubt anybody will be posting in it from here on out.

To any passing mods, please for the love of all this site stands for HoS this thread.

[Zeropoint]

And there is no extra-physical "qualia" going on behind it. Why?

For the same reason that there are no extra-physical "qualia" going on in the human brain: there's no such thing as extra-physical anything.

If I use my peanut jar cellular automata system to run a complete software simulation of a human brain in a human body interacting with a simulated environment, then the person living in that simulated brain will have "qualia" just like the rest of us do. (man, I'm going to need several years' worth of the entire world output of peanut jars for this!)

I see absolutely NO reason to suspect that "qualia" are anything other than physically stored data being physically processed by a physical information system.

What is the physical cause for these information systems causing qualia?

It's . . . the physical cause that makes the information systems capable of performing the logical operations that we have labeled "qualia". The difference between an old DOS computer running Doom and a human mind having the subjective experience of seeing a blue sky is one of degree, not kind.

[Luke Skywalker]

It's . . . the physical cause that makes the information systems capable of performing the logical operations that we have labeled "qualia".

Qualia is more than a logic operation; the "inner world" that exists within our heads, like a little camera, is unique.

If you look at our current physical laws, there is nothing there that predicts the emergence of qualia at all. I've asked you for it, and you've never given a clear answer because none exists. There is a clear answer for why software emerges from hardware, but not qualia from nervous systems.

I'm sorry, but every time I ask you for an explanation, your reply essentially reduces to "because that's the consequence of the neural system" - but the question is why this is a consequence of the neural system, and how elementary particles with properties clearly defined in mathematics such as spin and charge could aggregate to create the idea of subjective experience!

[Jub]

I know I said I was done, but I finally realized why we can't answer Luke's question. He's essentially asking us to provide proof for something that doesn't exist while presenting no proof of his own that things work as he says they do. Look back at this entire thread, aside from stamping his feet and asserting that others are wrong, has he done anything to prove that, in his own words, "the "inner world" that exists within our heads, like a little camera, is unique." You haven't proven that this little camera inside our heads is unique and not just some form of software that has self awareness as a side effect. You claim that there is a difference between a computer running code and a human, yet you've ducked questions about the difference.

In theory one could design a robot that knows it is unique from other robots of that series and separate from the world around it. It could have the same senses as a human and be given the capability to choose how to proceed in ways pertaining to it's intended task. If we set a robot to climb a hill as part of a team of other robots, gave it the senses of a human, allowed it to examine it's own choices based on past experiences, and asked it to choose its own route up said hill and bypass obstacles as it sees fit, how is that different from a human doing the same thing?

Where does the magic of qualia come into this?

[Luke Skywalker]

some form of software that has self awareness as a side effect.

This is where your "reading books" doesn't help you. All "side effects" in the physical world can be predicted by the laws of physics. The laws of physics cannot predict that this type of software will produce this inner camera. There is no mathematical equation that even has variables that are compatible with the idea of qualia.

In theory one could design a robot that knows it is unique from other robots of that series and separate from the world around it. It could have the same senses as a human and be given the capability to choose how to proceed in ways pertaining to it's intended task. If we set a robot to climb a hill as part of a team of other robots, gave it the senses of a human, allowed it to examine it's own choices based on past experiences, and asked it to choose its own route up said hill and bypass obstacles as it sees fit, how is that different from a human doing the same thing?

You know what, if we actually had a first principles understanding of qualia, we'd be able to answer the fucking question!

You have a weird habit of choking your own arguments. Like when you spent an entire page denying that qualia is a legitimate scientific term while quoting research papers that talked about qualia. It's a little comedic.

[Zeropoint]

Qualia is more than a logic operation; the "inner world" that exists within our heads, like a little camera, is unique.

You keep saying this, but haven't given any compelling reasons to believe that it's true.

The currently available evidence, as most of us here understand it, points to all aspects of human consciousness being nothing more than complex data operations performed by the brain, even if we haven't fully mapped the road from particle physics to thought quite yet. If you want us to believe otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.

If you look at our current physical laws, there is nothing there that predicts the emergence of qualia at all. I've asked you for it, and you've never given a clear answer because none exists.

Again, if you're saying that there are gaps in our knowledge, then yes, we all agree that there are and we could have ended this thread four pages ago. If you're claiming that "qualia" are some kind of mystical extra-physical magic, then "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", so show us what you've got. If you're making some other claim, you've done a VERY poor job of communicating what that is.

There is a clear answer for why software emerges from hardware, but not qualia from nervous systems.

How are these two cases any different?

[Luke Skywalker]

You keep saying this, but haven't given any compelling reasons to believe that it's true.

What? That it's unique? That's simply Occam's razor; we've never observed it anywhere else.

That it's more than just an abstraction? Are you seriously suggesting that the inner world you experience is not something that exists? Then what is it, and why does everyone seem to notice it?

The currently available evidence, as most of us here understand it, points to all aspects of human consciousness being nothing more than complex data operations performed by the brain, even if we haven't fully mapped the road from particle physics to thought quite yet. If you want us to believe otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.

Because those particle to particle interactions have no mechanism through which to produce qualia. That is a negative burden. Nobody has produced any physical causation for such a thing to happen.

Again, if you're saying that there are gaps in our knowledge

No, there's enough of a foundational understanding of the workings of elementary particles to know that properties such as spin and angular momentum aggregate to properties such as tensile strength in macroscopic scales, but these mathematical properties don't even use the same classification system as qualia.

How are these two cases any different?

Because software can be explained in terms of particles interacting. The data that is stored on your hardrive, the images you see on your screen, etc. Math and quantum mechanical wave functions could in principle explain them. They are mathematical things by their nature.

[Zeropoint]

What? That it's unique?

No, that it's more than a logic operation. Actually, as far as it being unique goes, a lot of smart animals like other primates, cetaceans, and corvids seem to have similar albeit less sophisticated mental functions.

That it's more than just an abstraction?

Yeah, that's the part I don't buy.

Are you seriously suggesting that the inner world you experience is not something that exists?

No. I'm seriously suggesting that it exists as an abstraction and logic operation.

Then what is it,

A logic operation.

and why does everyone seem to notice it?

It's a very significant logic operation.

The data that is stored on your hardrive, the images you see on your screen, etc. Math and quantum mechanical wave functions could in principle explain them. They are mathematical things by their nature.

So are qualia, according to all the best evidence.

[Jub]

This is where your "reading books" doesn't help you. All "side effects" in the physical world can be predicted by the laws of physics. The laws of physics cannot predict that this type of software will produce this inner camera. There is no mathematical equation that even has variables that are compatible with the idea of qualia.

You keep asserting that consciousness is special, I get that you're busy masturbating to how smart you feel you are, and when you do it your special little mind camera is beaming at how great it all feels, but what makes you feel that consciousness is any different than any other software? The issue you have is that you refuse to accept the premise that consciousness isn't special in spite of people who know more than you about it telling you that it isn't.

You know what, if we actually had a first principles understanding of qualia, we'd be able to answer the fucking question!

So even if I did manage to perfectly define the link you're admitting that you'd have no fucking clue if I'd done so or not. You who can't even define what consciousness is without resorting to comparing introspective thought to a camera claims that any answer given is this thread thus far is wrong, what basis do you have to do this?

[Purple]

This is where your "reading books" doesn't help you. All "side effects" in the physical world can be predicted by the laws of physics. The laws of physics cannot predict that this type of software will produce this inner camera.

But it can. If you were to have perfect understanding of the physical laws and perfect tools for observation you could observe the human body one subatomic particle at a time and create a perfect model that barring certain variables which truly are just random could perfectly predict and advance into any future state of that human body. Thus the human being that is simulated by said model would in fact feel and witness exactly that inner camera you keep talking about.*


* Massively simplified since I am in a hurry.

[Thanas]

Skywalker, you get a warning for wall of ignorance tactics in this thread.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't understand why this is so difficult for you to grasp. Perhaps you could read my posts a little more carefully instead of skimming them over and just assuming me to be another philosophical whimsical "science is flawed!" argument? That's what Starglider did, when he claimed that physics doesn't apply to biology. Don't be a Starglider, please.

Your argument IS just empty philosophical whimsy. It completely relies on the unjustified assumption that consciousness is somehow special and unique. You have been asked multiple times to demonstrate this is the case, but instead you keep repeating it ad nauseum.

Consciousness as in the electrical impulses that can be observed is NOT the mystery we are discussing.
Consciousness as in the subjective qualia, the "inner video camera" in our minds, is what we are discussing.

The two are very different things! There is a causal link from the first to the second. The question is what the physical, quantitative, fundamental-particles-and-forces framework for it is!

The point you so spectacularly missed is that these are NOT two very different things. YOU NEED TO JUSTIFY THE FACT THAT YOU THINK THEY ARE DIFFERENT. The entire field of neuroscience is based on the empirical and observationally justified assertion that they are NOT different. The burden of proof is on you. Repeating that something is true does not make it true.

Why is it that you can easily explain the physical components of neural networks without even being asked to, in several long paragraphs, but shy away from explaining the latter?

I clearly explained the latter in my last post. Which I can only assume you didn't actually read. Because although your response to it is extremely long winded, you didn't directly respond to a single point or question posed in that post.

You keep on trying to explain the latter through the observation of a relationship, but nobody is denying that such a relationship exists. The question is what the maths behind it is.

I explained this. If you really want the "maths" behind it, here are two papers that go through it in detail. Of course, by your general conduct in this thread I find it highly unlikely that you will even understand what those papers are saying, nevermind the chance you actually honestly respond to them.

Also, see what I did there? I provided evidence of my claims. Something you have yet to do.

All scientific observations except for qualia can be mathematically aggregated from fundamental properties of fundamental particles and forces.

PROVE IT. WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE OF THIS CLAIM, FOR THE HUNDREDTH TIME?

You can't just keep repeating this assertion as if it were self-evident. WHY can qualia not be mathematically aggregated, despite the fact that the fields of cognitive psychology and neuroscience are dedicated almost entirely to the act of this aggregation?

The arrangement of neural networks creating qualia cannot (and the positive burden is on you to show me what the explanation is) because quantum properties such as spin and charge don't aggregate into something as non-mathematical as the feeling of concrete.

Quantum properties have nothing to do with the arrangement of the neural networks, or the sensation of "qualia". That's pseudoscientific nonsense. The sensation of "qualia" is directly related to excitation patterns in neural networks. Period. I HAVE shown you what the explanation is, you chose to ignore it. And since YOU made the claim that qualia can not be scientifically explained, the burden is on YOU to show what the reason for that is.

They do aggregate into physical neurons, which somehow cause inner subjective experience, but we don't know what that somehow is!

So? Did you not understand or did you just ignore my analogy with genetics? Or evolution? Or gravity? Considering you haven't responded to those, I can only assume you don't understand the point. We don't know "how" genes cause traits to be expressed, or "how" evolution causes speciation, or "how" gravity affects time. There are a lot of unknowns in science. Yet, we understand the physical mechanisms of these phenomena and can build robust predictive models to understand their behavior. Inner subjective experience is no different from any of these. We have physical models for them (as I have explained multiple times in this thread). Just because we don't know with 100% certainty how the system works, does not mean the models are defunct by default.

So, you were very upset with my "physics -> neural networks -> consciousness" analogy because you thought the latter two weren't necessarily distinct. So let me rephrase it:

They aren't. That you haven't responded to that part of my post directly indicates to me that you are conceding that point.

Physics -> neural networks/consciousness/etc. -> subjective inner experience

So, again, you add another magic step to the process, despite the fact that my entire post was dedicated to explaining why you shouldn't do this? What the fuck is your major malfunction? You keep moving the goalposts and backpedaling furiously when shown how stupid your arguments are. Subjective inner experience is a part of consciousness, which is simply a specific subtype of neural activity. PERIOD. If you want to dispute this notion, PROVIDE THE FUCKING EVIDENCE.

Subjective inner experience having several unique properties:
1. Nobody else can "see" yours directly.

This isn't a unique property. This is true of most subjects in neuroscience, genetics, evolution, physics, and other fields of science.

And, in fact, we can indirectly "see" subjective inner experience and measure it in the form of the perturbational complexity index in transcranial magnetic stimulation studies.

2. It is not itself composed of particles.

Because it is an abstract concept used to describe a variety of physical processes, which are themselves composed of particles. As I explained in my previous post, and as you have continued to ignore.

3. It does not exist in any other natural object that we know, while everything in neural networks at a fundamental level do.

This is patently false. I have explained this in previous posts, and now am showing you a paper that backs that up. Now, you have made a claim. I expect you to:

1) Present evidence that no other organisms possess indirect subjective experience.
2) Present evidence that every other element of human neural networks exist in all other organisms.

Now, explain subjective inner experience through physics, or why neural networks cause it, without just saying that the relationship has been observed. We know the relationship has been observed; the question is what the relationship comes from.

I told you what the relationship comes from. Please re-read my previous post and actually respond to the points and question I raised therein. The relationship is a result of temporal synchronization by means of recurrent thalamo-cortical resonance. I have clearly and plainly explained the nature of this relationship in my previous post, and in this post have provided several scientific papers that justify this assertion. I have done my due diligence. In fact, I posed a challenge to you in both of my previous posts, and you haven't even acknowledge the challenge at all. I am going to repost them both, here:

And it is ironic that you accuse me of trying to dance around the issue, considering you have refused multiple direct requests to explained the two cruxes of your argument:

1) WHY IS CONSCIOUSNESS SPECIAL?
2) WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A PHYSICAL BASIS FOR CONSCIOUSNESS?

You have rejected my proposed evidence for point 2) by appealing to point 1), but you have not yet actually explained what makes consciousness so special that our physical models cannot account for it.

This constitutes a physical model for consciousness. If you disagree with this model, you have to do one of two things:

1) Point out where in the above description that I am objectively incorrect.
OR
2) Explain how consciousness is so distinct from "neural activity" that the above description is fallacious and doesn't apply.

Otherwise, we have a physical model of consciousness. You already admit the physical model for neural activity is robust. In light of the above, since consciousness is only a specific type of neural activity and not some distinct phenomenon, we have a robust physical model for consciousness.

[NoXion]

Because software can be explained in terms of particles interacting. The data that is stored on your hardrive, the images you see on your screen, etc. Math and quantum mechanical wave functions could in principle explain them. They are mathematical things by their nature.

The implication here is that consciousness can't be explained in terms of particle interactions, which begs the question: why not?

Furthermore, why are particle interactions being considered the gold standard of explanation? Yes, in principle you could describe such phenomena on that level, but in practice it would be enormously cumbersome to the point of uselessness to do so. Far better to use a more convenient level of fundamental physical focus suitable to the system under discussion, such as synapses in the case of brains or switches in the case of computers. I think this is the kind of thing that Starglider actually meant when you interpret him to be saying that physics doesn't apply to biology. Whether you're repairing a car or conducting brain surgery, the laws of physics will always apply, but it's not necessarily useful to think in terms of particle interactions rather than in terms of crankshafts and cerebral lobes.

I'm not actually sure what it is that you're positing; I guess that you're not pushing some kind of dualism, so what are you trying to say?

[Zeropoint]

The implication here is that consciousness can't be explained in terms of particle interactions, which begs the question: why not?

You're not the first person to notice this. By now it's well established that he is unable or unwilling to explain why anyone should believe this. He'll tell you that it's true, and may even imply that you're stupid for not seeing it, but he won't give you any evidence or even an argument--just bald assertions.

I'm not actually sure what it is that you're positing; I guess that you're not pushing some kind of dualism, so what are you trying to say?

As far as I can tell, he IS pushing some kind of dualism, but . . . doesn't want to admit it? It would be nice if he'd actually make a clear point.