|
Post by Bluefinger on Feb 7, 2010 16:20:06 GMT -5
Okay, let me try to summarise my response:
You know your experience is real because you experience it. By that reasoning, dreaming is as real as reality. After all, you experience it. But dreams don't occur out in reality, only inside the confines of your mind. Whole existences can be played out within this virtual manifestation. But they never actually occurred. So, how can your subjective experience be a reliable measure of the world you perceive? That's because despite there being a subjective experience, there's an objective reality that we can all relate to. Even if we are unsure of the reality around us, as a whole, we can gather enough information using our experiences, and then correlate that together to form an idea of the reality around us.
The behavioural markers scientists assume to be linked with consciousness are tested against subjects, and over multiple different species in order to cross-examine the behaviours and see if they correlate to actual indications of complex cognition. The fact that there are ways to test for this AND have means to monitor and observe brain activity over a variety of ways mean that consciousness itself is not unknowable, just an unknown. We can test our perceptions, we can see the effects of particular areas of damage to the brain can alter perceptions and our consciousness, so just because the 'subjective experience' is not yet fully understood does not make it unknowable.
We have ways to compare and test these things, but the models to fully understand the complex situation regarding our minds is not developed that far yet. The fact that a lot of what's gathered so far indicates that our unconscious part of our mind influences greatly the conscious aspect means that what we consider to be free-will and consciousness is not quite what we think it is. It isn't untestable and unknowable, just hard to test and define. Just because it is hard does not make it unknowable.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Feb 7, 2010 16:35:45 GMT -5
You know your experience is real because you experience it. By that reasoning, dreaming is as real as reality. After all, you experience it. But dreams don't occur out in reality, only inside the confines of your mind. Whole existences can be played out within this virtual manifestation. But they never actually occurred. I'm not sure you quite got what I was trying to say. I know that experience is real because I experience it. That does not mean that the things I am experiencing are real. By that reasoning, the experiences in a dream are just as real as waking experiences, whether the things I'm experiencing in those dreams are real or not. Right, behavior markers and other evidence that are assumed to be linked to consciousness are measured across different species and are found to correlate to complex cognition. In other words, we've confirmed a link between those markers and complex cognition. That's great. But the correlation between complex cognition and consciousness is still merely assumed. I agree, but I have yet to see anything that could, even hypothetically, objectively prove the existence of subjective experience.
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Feb 7, 2010 16:51:42 GMT -5
I'm not sure you quite got what I was trying to say. I know that experience is real because I experience it. That does not mean that the things I am experiencing are real. By that reasoning, the experiences in a dream are just as real as waking experiences, whether the things I'm experiencing in those dreams are real or not. And what I was trying to get at is that the experience you perceive is not always reliable. Before that, I even indicated that what could be thought as decisions made by a 'subjective experience', as in consciously, could be predicted beforehand by monitoring unconscious brain activity. So, how is the subjective experience something OTHER than what goes on in our minds? If it can be observed to a degree, by monitoring brain activity, then it means that the aspect of our experience is derived from our brain. One's subjective experience is not magically separate from the rest of our brain. Right, behavior markers and other evidence that are assumed to be linked to consciousness are measured across different species and are found to correlate to complex cognition. In other words, we've confirmed a link between those markers and complex cognition. That's great. But the correlation between complex cognition and consciousness is still merely assumed. That's because the facilities for consciousness require complex cognition, and that particular behaviours that indicate consciousness are only found in species with facilities for complex cognition. However, the degree of consciousness in humans mean that we have to account for a whole new level of behaviours and thought patterns, but it isn't something that we can't compare with other species in order to establish a framework of what we can define as consciousness. I agree, but I have yet to see anything that could, even hypothetically, objectively prove the existence of subjective experience. Just because you don't see it doesn't make it unknowable.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Feb 7, 2010 16:56:23 GMT -5
I agree, but I have yet to see anything that could, even hypothetically, objectively prove the existence of subjective experience. Here's an easy way to do it, you have multiple people all watch the same event. Then you have them report back what they observed immediately afterward. Compare the accounts, if there are differences, the experience was different.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Feb 7, 2010 17:13:22 GMT -5
And what I was trying to get at is that the experience you perceive is not always reliable. And what I'm trying to say is that it is irrelevant to my point. I don't think we're using the same definitions here. When I talk about consciousness or objective experience, I'm not talking about thought processes. Rather, I'm talking about the fact that we are subjectively aware OF our thought processes, sensory input, etc. As such, the fact that unconscious brain activity influences our "conscious" thought is also irrelevant. According to what? In order to make any connection, you first have to show that any test subject has consciousness in the first place. How do you go about doing that? Again, I think we're using different definitions of our terms. It's easy to prove and measure anything if you define it as something else. In this case, "consciousness" is defined as "complex cognition." Voila! Consciousness proved and measured! If there's a way, then by all means, show me.
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Feb 7, 2010 17:30:50 GMT -5
I don't think we're using the same definitions here. When I talk about consciousness or objective experience, I'm not talking about thought processes. Rather, I'm talking about the fact that we are subjectively aware OF our thought processes, sensory input, etc. As such, the fact that unconscious brain activity influences our "conscious" thought is also irrelevant. Self-awareness then, right? That is in itself a thought process, manifested from our brains as it interprets data it gathers from sensory input. You can't separate an action of the mind away from the brain, because they are linked. Just because it is self-awareness doesn't magically separate it. And the fact that there is an unconscious influence also means that what we regard as consciousness is slightly compromised. It just means that any model that is constructed must take that into account. According to what? In order to make any connection, you first have to show that any test subject has consciousness in the first place. How do you go about doing that? If the other subject is human, one would do it through how they interact with them. Can they follow conversations, can they understand and handle particular concepts, etc. We analyse the behaviours and responses to come to an understanding. Again, I think we're using different definitions of our terms. It's easy to prove and measure anything if you define it as something else. In this case, "consciousness" is defined as "complex cognition." Voila! Consciousness proved and measured! But that's not what I'm doing. I'm saying that to experience consciousness, certain facilities are required, because all observed evidence has pointed out that such phenomena such as consciousness is dependent on having a complex brain capable of particular forms of cognition. If there's a way, then by all means, show me. How about Vene's attempt?
|
|
|
Post by John E on Feb 7, 2010 17:38:58 GMT -5
Self-awareness then, right? That is in itself a thought process, manifested from our brains as it interprets data it gathers from sensory input. And how do we know this? Again you're talking about complex cognition and assuming that it's correlated to consciousness, a correlation you haven't (and I contend, cannot) shown. And I'm saying that you haven't shown that to be true. How can the evidence possible show that when you can't prove whether a subject has consciousness in the first place? Vene's attempt misses the point. Two video cameras can film the same event, but differences in their circuitry, optics, etc. can cause one to record an object as being blue and the other to record the same object as being green. In that sense, they are subjective, but that doesn't mean they have consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Feb 7, 2010 17:45:28 GMT -5
Of course you have to use the same camera, the same feed, the same screen, the same everything except the person, that's science, John. You're adding stuff in there that I didn't say.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Feb 7, 2010 17:48:02 GMT -5
I'm not adding stuff. I'm giving a counter-example.
If people seeing & remembering things differently = those people have consciousness then If video cameras see & record things differently = those video cameras have consciousness
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Feb 7, 2010 18:00:12 GMT -5
I said nothing about consciousness, I was stating on how to test for subjectivity. And it's really not as different as you think considering our bodies are machinery. Without doing too much for looking up information, I'd suggest that you do some digging into emergence, about how a bunch of small parts working together can make something bigger than all of them taken individually.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Feb 7, 2010 18:02:26 GMT -5
I'm not disputing subjectivity though, not in that sense. I'm disputing the provability of consciousness, which I also refer to as subjective experience.
|
|
|
Post by Vypernight on Feb 7, 2010 18:13:23 GMT -5
I was just curious. Is there a title or label for someone who believes in a higher power and/or afterlife but doesn't believe in or doesn't follow a religious path? Maybe someone who belives but chooses not to follow any religion?
Just wondering.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Feb 7, 2010 18:16:07 GMT -5
I was just curious. Is there a title or label for someone who believes in a higher power and/or afterlife but doesn't believe in or doesn't follow a religious path? That's pretty much what a deist is. No idea what that would be called. I was wondering that myself recently.
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Feb 7, 2010 18:38:40 GMT -5
Umm... because we can study the brain and fuck around with it. We have scanners, we can monitor the effects of drugs on it, we can categorise behaviours and perceptions, compare them, etc. Fucking hell, we've even figured out how memory forms in the brain, reliant on both chemicals and the establishment of specific neural pathways. Example and Example 2Wrong. There are particular processes that can be monitored and tested against which have indicated that in order to have self-referential cognition, particular processes must be present and experiments have shown that these facilities are a part of complex cognition. So I ask you, how is consciousness something separate from our brains? What makes the aspect of self-reference and self-awareness as a quality that can't be measured? Okay then, how do you know that I am conscious? What makes you so sure that you are talking to a conscious person? Don't you have mechanisms to allow you to gauge at least whether the person you are talking to is conscious? What is looked for is particular, emergent brain activity that is an indicator for self-awareness, consciousness. And of course, there's plenty that's been done to try to nail this down further. We establish first a framepoint, a common viewpoint on which a group of experiences can be correlated against. The environment is homogenised and regulated as much as possible so that when subjects are exposed to an event, they all get the exact same information. You gather information from recorded experiences and then analyse them for differences. If you are looking for subjective markers, then the analysis for differences in people's reaction to a common event is a pretty good one. Like how people react to the same Rorschach picture differently, whilst at the same time able to pick out similar features from a random assortment of blobs. At least in building a picture of the subjective aspect of experience, then that's a good start.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Feb 7, 2010 18:49:33 GMT -5
Umm... because we can study the brain and fuck around with it. We have scanners, we can monitor the effects of drugs on it, we can categorise behaviours and perceptions, compare them, etc. Fucking hell, we've even figured out how memory forms in the brain, reliant on both chemicals and the establishment of specific neural pathways. Example and Example 2Also, long term potentiation. Yeah, it's a wiki link, I know, I don't care.
|
|