Consciousness, Death, Existentialism etc.

[Dent]

Cat REM Sleep w/o Paralysis - YouTube

Cat REM Sleep w/o Paralysis - YouTube

[Dent]

Existential comics belong here.

A Dialogue on Compatibilism - Existential Comics

[Mr. Blonde]

Consciousness Does Not Compute (and Never Will), Says Korean Scientist -- CHUNGCHEONGBUK-DO, South Korea, May 5, 2015 /PRNewswire/ --

[Dent]

Not sure why hist 2007 paper is being reported as news, he's in the much derided Orchestrated objective reduction camp.
ChurchTuring thesis - Philosophical_implications
There are alternatives my fellow quantum mind-binders.

Originally Posted by http://www.biointelligence-explosion.com/

Other quantum mind theorists, most notably Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, treat quantum minds as evolutionarily novel rather than phylogenetically ancient. They invoke a non-physical wave-function collapse and unwisely focus on e.g. the ability of mathematically-inclined brains to perform non-computable functions in higher mathematics, a feat for which selection pressure has presumably been non-existent. Yet the human capacity for sequential linguistic thought and formal logico-mathematical reasoning is a late evolutionary novelty executed by a slow, brittle virtual machine running on top of its massively parallel quantum parent - a momentous evolutionary innovation whose neural mechanism is still unknown.

[Mr. Blonde]

Higher Consciousness - YouTube

Higher Consciousness - YouTube

One of the better non-drug/woo/Eastern spice videos that explains the concept

[Dent]

What concept? higher/lower consciousness is crude, a great non-explanation.
It has nothing to do with quantum mind either, I don't even know what these people mean by neo-cortex, I would prefer "fundamentals arranged neo-cortex-like"

Mereological nihilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is it about introspection that leads us to believing subjectivity is dependent on synaptic firings?
EDit :
Wannan no why white people are great and black people are bad? in the white part of the brain there is a bit of left order consciousness that does all the cool stuff.

[Mr. Blonde]

Not sure what you mean. I understand consciousness a "something" that has the access to different mental planes that one can move through, or at least the planes our brains are capable of moving through, primarily dominated by different states of awareness and meta-cognition and a thorough understanding of abstract "higher" concepts.

The function of the kind of speech dealing with "higher" and "lower" consciousness I think is mostly useful as a sort of guidepost to those who are only used to dealing with regular waking, dreaming, and inebriated consciousness. The latter in particular most definitely I would rank on the lower scales.

[Dent]

I asked the ADMINS to move my definitions post to this thread, It would be great if we could collectively come up with some terms we all agree on.

Consciousness

Originally Posted by physicalism

Accurately if inelegantly, consciousness may be described following Nagel ("What is it like to be a bat?") as the subjective what-it's-like-ness of experience. Academic philosophers term such self-intimating "raw feels" "qualia" - whether macro-qualia or micro-qualia.

Raw Feels, what-it's-like-ness, something it's like to be.
I don't experience any of these things in a dreamless sleep, it's not even dark.

On my understanding there is no need for varying mental planes to be conscious, superfluid helium is conscious/experiential, there's something it's like to be it, but it needn't change over time and it doesn't have to be able to respond in a fitness relevant way to it's environment.

I'd love to pin down "causal efficacy" too, I LOL when I compare my thoughts on it a few years ago.

Here's a couple of William James quotes, of course I want an explanation for the different textures of consciousness that "we" experience, and I can relate to what you've said.

"Our normal waking consciousness, rational consciousness as we call it, is but one special type of consciousness, whilst all about it, parted from it by the filmiest of screens, there lie potential forms of consciousness entirely different."
(William James)

If it's the mereology/neo-cortex bit you didn't understand I hope this helps.

"4.4.3. The binding problem
One of the motivations for models with quantum coherence in the brain was the so-called binding problem. In the words of James [77,78], ``the only realities are the separate molecules, or at most cells. Their aggregation into a `brain' is a fiction of popular speech''. James' concern, shared by many after him, was that consciousness did not seem to be spatially localized to any one small part of the brain, yet subjectively feels like a coherent entity. Because of this, Stapp [3] and many others have appealed to quantum coherence, arguing that this could make consciousness a holistic effect involving the brain as a whole.''
(Max Tegmark)

(I'm saying we are an extremely brief coherent entity, and it's the "seperate" molecules/cells/atoms/quarks that are fiction)

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Dent

I asked the ADMINS to move my definitions post to this thread, It would be great if we could collectively come up with some terms we all agree on.

To be honest, in your own personal mission, what are you trying to get to the bottom of? Or rather, what are we talking about, exactly? I'm less interested in discussing mutual terms, as we pretty much agree on much of the same things, we just use different ways of describing them. I feel like I'm much more literary-focused and you're much more focused on the scientific end.

That being said, I don't really see much beyond these realizations other than intense personal development and helping fellow man reach the same realizations, or those that want to anyways. And glad to see you quoting William James, the father of American psychology, which is a field I wish you would move more into instead of the hard science terms of qualia et al. I firmly believe a deep understanding of one's own psyche is first necessary step to understanding the rest of the world with the proper heirarchy of importance. (read: science is WAY less interesting to me these days simply because it feels kind of boring. It just keeps getting bigger or smaller, it's probably always going to be that way).

A good way I like to think about it is that if I think I understand my own brain and behaviors I probably don't. Extreme-self-doubt is a great tool for constant self-monitoring.

[Dent]

I don't think this has anything to do with science, science is silent when it comes to discussing the "intrinsic nature of the physical" as far as physics is concerned there is no such thing as consciousness/qualia, can it be superseded with a THEORY OF EVERYTHING?

If the quantum fields of physics are qualia/experiential fields (and it's a whooper of a task to understand "our" relationship with these qualia fields, as if we were observing from afar) then there should be way of converting between the structural properties and experiential properties. It would be nice to be able to look at something and know what it was like to be it without mind-melding. Quantum fields need to be mapped from the inside.

If consciousness is the "fire" then it could be the only thing that has causal efficacy, I find this concept novel and exciting.

Originally Posted by physicalism

According to idealistic physicalism, a sentient agent really does remove its hand from the flame because the burning sensation feels agonisingly hot. Consciousness has causal efficacy....Without such causal power, not merely would intelligent agents be unable to investigate consciousness: we wouldn't have grounds for alluding to the existence of consciousness in the first instance.

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

That's a fair point, but I would like to point out the following, from our friend Hawking in A Brief History of Time

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory (here he's talking about the unification of quantum mechanics with an understanding of gravity), it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"

Now obviously science may some day be able to answer that question, but I think it's a very important and profound one to keep in mind, as philosophers, scientists and theologians have because it may point to something outside of nature. Just food for thought.

Originally Posted by Galen Strawson

But this now raises a further point about ignorance, a point still insufficiently
appreciated by some within the philosophy of mind. For all these truths about the
physical, outright or approximate, are expressed by statements of number or equations:
mathematical equations featuring various constants in addition to various numbers
and mathematical functions. They are, as such, truths about quantities and relational
structures instantiated in concrete reality.
I like Eddington’s description of the achievements of physical theory, which is as
apposite today as it was in 1928:

Something unknown is doing we don’t know what—that is what our theory [physics]
amounts to. It does not sound a particularly illuminating theory. I have read
something like it elsewhere...
...the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
There is the same suggestion of activity. There is the same indefiniteness as to the
nature of the activity and of what it is that it is doing. And yet from so unpromising
a beginning we really do get somewhere. We bring into order a host of apparently
unrelated phenomena; we make predictions, and our predictions come off. The
reason—the sole reason—for this progress is that our description is not limited to
unknown agents, executing unknown activities, but numbers are scattered freely
in the description. To contemplate electrons circulating in the atom carries us no
further; but by contemplating eight circulating electrons in one atom and seven
circulating atoms in another we begin to realise the difference between oxygen
and nitrogen. Eight slithy toves gyre and gimble in the oxygen wabe; seven in
nitrogen...

^ I love the slithy toves analogy, and as you can see i'm also way out of depth on this stuff.

[Dent]

Originally Posted by Galen Strawson

Descartes (the true grandfather of physicalist naturalism) remarked in 1641 in
the Sixth Meditation that «all the properties» of physical things «which [we] clearly
and distinctly understand are [...] comprised within the subject matter of pure
mathematics». Russell in 1927 wrote that
physics is mathematical, not because we know so much about the physical world,
but because we know so little: it is only its mathematical properties that we can
discover. For the rest, our knowledge is negative.

a claim he later modified (to take account of Max Newman’s well known 1928
objection) to
the physical world is only known as regards certain abstract features of its spacetime
structure [...] we know nothing about the events that make matter, except
their space-time structure.

This point about the form of our theoretical knowledge of the physical is at the
same time a point about the extent of our ignorance. Physics may tell us a great deal
about the structure of physical reality in so far as it can be logico-mathematically
represented (and we may suppose that all its purely structural characteristics can be
fully logico-mathematically represented), but it’s arguable that it can’t tell us anything
about the intrinsic nature of reality in so far as its intrinsic nature is more than its
structure.

.

[Dent]

see :
About | Qualia Computing

[Dent]

'More Rational Than Thou'|Stuart Hameroff

Dawkins getting fucked by quantum consciousness

Edit : Hameroff talking shit in the article as well
"(1) neuroscience tells us mental constructs don't match physical reality; that we, to some extent at least, construct reality"

[Mr. Blonde]

Joe Rogan Experience #739 - Duncan Trussell & Christopher Ryan - YouTube

Joe Rogan Experience #739 - Duncan Trussell & Christopher Ryan - YouTube

these three get into an excellent round-table stream of consciousness discussion about culture and technology at about 38 minutes in

[Dent]

I'd already saved that video with plans to upload a clip of Christopher Ryan being an insufferable nob, I don't think I lasted long enough to get to the consciousness disccusion.

i'll find the insufferable bit now

[Dent]

no understanding of evolutionary psychology

Jealous for Seals - YouTube

Jealous for Seals - YouTube

[Mr. Blonde]

I don't really care much for Christopher Ryan, never heard of him till this podcast I think he's a little out of his depth, however past some of his cringey moments he made some pretty interesting points.

Did you hear his comment claiming that....basically that birth control somehow disrupts subconscious pheremone/hormone sensory balance in terms of the biological undercurrent of choosing a mate --- ?

Difficult to describe but I looked it up and it looks like he's referring to this: Sex on the Pill: How Birth Control Affects Attraction

RE: the seal, I don't think he's trying to come off as a marine biologist. It sounds to me like he's just basically trying to ameliorate the general materialist doom and gloom of contemporary Western society.

We make Nature out to be this super-cruel thing, which of course it can be, but he's basically pointing to a sort of "ratio of pleasant experiences vs. terrible ones".

I made a pie chart displaying what I think he meant.



Not bad compared to spending most of it's life freaking out about anything other than getting eaten at some point (and outside of general awareness and obviously the chemicals released during being chased, I really do not think they fret much about their eventual death).

That being said, he doesn't sound like he knows much about the life of seals.

Amusing anecdote: If Google results are telling of anything, people are generally way more interested in the NAVY Seals than the animal.

[Dent]

Average hedonic tone during all those activities besides spunking :

Also i've never seen a seal generally swim I would replace that with seal nightmares.

[Mr. Blonde]

lol. Well I respectfully disagree. These animals have had to evolve effective counter-detection and escape mechanisms with a certain positive ration of survival/fitness to continue to exist into the present and, while the course of Nature demands that flesh consume flesh (which I do not view as vile but necessary in the animal realm), for the most part the seals are programmed by evolution to enjoy being chased to a degree. I think that's what Joe is talking about near the end of that vid, of the euphoric© pleasure of endorphins being released into the animals when they escape. If you have ever run from the cops and not been caught u know what I mean.

Seal nightmares? More like seal fantasies! ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Seals Swimming Underwater - YouTube

Seals Swimming Underwater - YouTube

Beater Seals Playing on the Ice - YouTube

Beater Seals Playing on the Ice - YouTube

[Mr. Blonde]

.

[Mr. Blonde]

The Importance of Wild-Animal Suffering ? Foundational Research Institute

[Dent]

I agree that seals don’t fret about their death, but fretting about death in and of itself is not displeasurable. It’s hedonic tone that matters, not the ability to mentalise i.e. you don’t need to have a concept of death or anything else to have a bad time, you just have the bad time. To know whether a seal is feeling good or bad during these activities, we need to determine the link between behaviour and hedonic tone.
Are animals behaving a certain way to escape pain, to enhance pleasure, or both? It could be only one, in which case it is necessary to have a gradient. If it is a combination, such as suggested in your pie chart, how much suffering is needed for a life not to be worthwhile? Which of these scenarios would you copy if given the chance?
Scenario 1: 1% Pleasure 99% Pain
Scenario 2: 49% Pleasure 51% Pain
Scenario 3: 99% Pleasure 1% pain
Finally, the course of nature doesn’t demand that flesh consumes flesh, it didn’t for 3 billion years prior to animal predation, and there is no good reason to think it is necessary for future existence. What part of the definition of “animal realm” do you think requires predation?

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

The Importance of Wild-Animal Suffering ? Foundational Research Institute

FRI are the Swiss guys I mentioned, here's Tomask next to DP and the crew

[Mr. Blonde]

It came up last night as I was just looking into the topic a bit. I think I understand what you are saying but it helps to use already-established language as the wikipedia for Hedonic Tone is a bit lacking.

However in terms of music I understand what you mean, but if we are going to speak about Tone then we need to also talk about Frequency. The pie chart was a simplification explaining what Christopher Ryan was communicating, not my personal opinion. Frequency/Gradient = same/same, with "5-sense limitation differences".

Are animals behaving a certain way to escape pain, to enhance pleasure, or both? It could be only one, in which case it is necessary to have a gradient.

Well we are discussing a social realm of academia then, ethology/animal behavior/Naturalism. The problem with these fields is that they have to be outside of the laboratory -- the scientific method works to an extent, but it adds into account the random and spontaneous variable of the natural environment, which is why social theory/predictions can never be completely accurate.

I love animals and don't want to see them suffer more than anyone else. I am not arguing against the harshness of Nature, but I am proposing an acceptance of it and lessening of suffering where we can.

Before we address the cruelty of Nature, in which we are the only animals to evolve highly enough rational thinking and a complex linguistic bank of ideas and concepts to draw on, and which can't even defend itself, perhaps we should mind to the planks in our own eyes before we criticize the speck in our Mothers'.

For example, what is your stance on zoos? On factory farming? On keeping intelligent beings in small cages, indoors, away from the grass, the sky, fresh air, trees, injecting them with industrial chemicals? On enslaving mammals from birth, ripping them away from their natural mothers ande environment and pumping them full of unnatural food and hormones to increase muscle mass so we can unconsciously consume meat en masse?

True empathy for the suffering of animals goes a bit beyond the Hedonic tone and goes more into the realm of radical, illegal activism.

Finally, the course of nature doesn’t demand that flesh consumes flesh, it didn’t for 3 billion years prior to animal predation, and there is no good reason to think it is necessary for future existence. What part of the definition of “animal realm” do you think requires predation?

I can cite many examples of carnivorous plants in nature if you want. Or I could say how the nutrients required in soil for plants to grow come from dead plant material (plant flesh). Or I could talk about one of my favorite topics, fungus, which evolved as basically a solution to decompose ("eat") plant matter and recycle it back into the soil.

So yes, as painful and absurd as it may be, the fact of the matter is that in order for Life to exist, in the 3-D realm, in our dimension, on this planet, is that in order for "complex" organisms to survive, some form of predation to acquire nutrients at a cellular level to the "animal realm".

[Dent]

Frequency as in time? How many bliss points outweigh mega suffering?
Is Hedonic valence better for you than tone? negative/positive valence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valence_(psychology)

For example, what is your stance on zoos?

Abolitish

factory farming?

Abolish (almost completely vegan 2 years now)

On keeping intelligent beings in small cages, indoors, away from the grass, the sky, fresh air, trees, injecting them with industrial chemicals?

Tone Is what matters, not whatever is in the environment that contributes to tone, grass sky and fresh air would be good for most though.

On enslaving mammals from birth

Abolish (talking to some anti-natalists who think all birth is slavery and all breeding is immoral, I think humans need to be around to make paradise instead)

True empathy for the suffering of animals goes a bit beyond the Hedonic tone and goes more into the realm of radical, illegal activism.

Strongly disagree
Dunno about empathy but I don’t think the most effective way of helping non humans, present and future,involves anything illegal. Most animal activism is probably net negative.
and if it does let me know what illegal activities may save the world

some form of predation to acquire nutrients at a cellular level to the "animal realm".

I’m not an animist and I don’t call that predation, neither does the dictionary. I doubt the sun suffers much when the nasty plants use it's photons in the ATP chain either

“ fact of the matter”

Come now

Q's for blonde:

1. Do you think the production/consumption of mussels involves more or less suffering than grain/some types of plants? (thinking mice being cut up in shredders etc.. not plant sentience)
2. is a future with free-living non humans as they are now a zoo to you? they'd need welfare and wouldn't be molested/harmed, but wouldn't be boosted to mega intelligence/rocket tech.
sometimes I think it would be easier to only have super smart beings so you don't have a power imbalance (prolly still would)


hey blonde i'm back to edit some more, hope you read

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

I can cite many examples of carnivorous plants in nature if you want.

Cite all you want, the existence of predation doesn't mean that it's required. It's evolution in the first place needs an explanation.
so does.. and back to what matters (predation could probably feel good)

Originally Posted by DP

Of course, ratcheting up hedonic range and hedonic set-points isn't totally preference-neutral. If it were totally preference-neutral, then negative hedonic tone would not have evolved. But only social animals get depressed: low mood (and its accompanying behavioural suppression) would appear to be a genetic adaptation to group living in the ancestral environment of adaptation. The biotech revolution and the imminent reproductive revolution of designer babies changes the nature of selection pressure insofar as intelligent agents will shortly choose the genetic make-up of their offspring in anticipation of the likely behaviour and psychological consequences of their choices.

[Dent]

New atheists must become new vegans: Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and the extra burden on moral leaders - Salon.com