"Except you were not replying to the nautilus article, you were replying to the one i posted by Grosz"

Good point - there are so many cranks around I lose track.

I had a look at the Grosz article. I have never seen such pure excrement in word form. Can I get a job at Duke if I publish used toilet paper?

I think the following waffle in the article is beyond the Standard Model and therefore contradicted by the physicist's argument:

"It will be my claim here that materiality, bare matter, matter not in its simplified form but before being animated by life, is nevertheless always involved in and invested by incorporeal forces, forces of potential sense, forces of virtual significance that living bodies, in elaborating their own ends or finality, affirm and develop"

It is not contradicted. That comment is not science, it is just speculation (or philosophy if you wish). It is a grave fallacy to think that just because speculation is performed by a scientist, that speculation is science or "observation".

At our current understanding of consciousness we have no way of observing its presence or absence except subjectively. So at this point there is no scientific way of either proving or disproving that a carrot have consciousness.

You may think it is "obvious" that a carrot does not have consciousness. Which is fine, but that doesn't make the opinion science. For what it is is worth I intuitively think consciousness requires a complex brain, but I recognize I cannot prove or disprove it given our current understanding.

Mmmmm, no, the Standard Model is hard science. Even if you assumed that matter was "made of consciousness" you cannot make use of that assumption in explaining consciousness arising from matter in a brain. As only the properties of matter observed in the Standard Model can be appealed to at the energy levels in a brain. According to a professional physicist. Not my argument.

Are you saying the Standard Model is not empirically true???

> According to a professional physicist.

This is your fallacy right there.

Science is a process and method. If a professional scientist performs philosophy it does not automatically become science due to the persons job title. And vice versa.

Empirically verified physics, not philosophy, does not allow any properties of matter to be appealed to when trying to explain consciousness in the human brain other than those described in the Standard Model. You can assume that matter is made of consciousness or chocolate or whatever you like, but you cannot use that assumption in trying to explain consciousness in a brain according to the results of the Standard Model. Got it???

If you think this physical fact is not true, then explain why. Though I think your time would be better spent familiarising yourself with McDonald's menu for your future career rather than pondering difficult questions about consciousness...

The paper i posted makes no such claims. It build up an idea of human consciousness as an emergence from the inherent properties of the interactions of elements, chemical bonds and environment.

That human consciousness is a function of the boundary between the brain and the environment across which senses pass; the internal processes virtualising the external environment. The human consciousness then also has awareness of itself, sensed across the boundary, and re-virtualised within; akin to Hofstadter's loop.

At the same time, Grosz breaks down the concept of consciousness in the other direction, looking at this idea of virtualization within a sensing boundary in a single cell organism. The mechanism of such consciousness can be understood in this case as a mere transfer of information. From there its turtles all the way down.

Such a view is well within the standard model.

It's simply saying that "consciousness" is related to the brain, but doesn't explain the subjective feeling of consciousness.

The stuff about the single cell organism's supposed consciousness is just a lame analogy.

This is what you can do if you are a "philosopher" - just sniff some glue and write stuff down.

Oh please suppress your ad hominem "crank" attack. The post you linked gets so many things wrong, its as if they are battling an entirely different entity.

Electrons don't need to think to be conscious because thinking != consciousness. Experiencing their state is all that needs to occur to satisfy consciousness.

The idea is that consciousness experienced is 1:1 with the state of the matter producing the consciousness.

Also, the randomness in quantum behavior could actually be how conscious entities think. Electrons may only have a couple states but they get to roll the dice, fairly, on those states. Just like we think we do, even though our decisions are random..not actually "willed."

Except you were not replying to the nautilus article, you were replying to the one i posted by Grosz. You might like to have a read of it, it does not makes the claims you are suggesting.

> by Grosz. You might like to have a read of it, it does not makes the claims you are suggesting.

I have read it. That article cites others, so you can wiggle out that it doesn't make claims alone, but what is inside is the same worthless "idea":

"sub-atomic particles have a primary consciousness, an immediate self-perception or self-survey, an overflight without distance, immediately in touch with itself and its Umwelt, which in the case of the particle, includes not only the other particles comprising the atom but perhaps the entirety of all particles, the universe itself. Like the embryo, the brain or any living thing, sub-atomic particles act their being, perceive themselves, form and maintain themselves"

Of course that idea is supported by... nothing but the trick that if we redefine consciousness as the interaction of anything with its environment (and call the environment Umwelt to sound more clever), then everything is conscious. Duh.

However, scientifically, most of the animals have to be self aware, at least enough to survive: they have to differently handle their own body and their own situation in the environment compared to the surroundings. And that is the real limit: consciousness as we know it is a product of the evolution.

1. I was specifically replying to the flagged poster (flagged for good reason as they are being derisive without warrant), who let on that they did not actually mean to reply to my post.

2. Not wiggling, fuck i am not saying anything at all apart from that it does not make the claims they were suggesting—which it does not. I just said I liked the article.

I like that it navigates a coherent path through a concept which is often quite.. far fetched. Gives framework around how to see consciousness differently without making any claims about consciousness than that which is observed.

But seriously, the idea that you must take on the entirety of a cannon if you make reference to it (even when expressly arguing against it) is, how shall I put this nicely.. just fucking ridiculous.

3. You seem to suggest we should rest on our current conceptual understanding of various types of consciousness rather than trying to figure out how break them down into their constituent parts. Very scientific.

>to sound more clever

Really, why the snark? seems you don't understand how philosophy (or language for that matter works). The terms are used to maintain a meaning explained and argued previously, and to avoid common language meanings unrelated to the concept. What you said would be like chiding a mathematician for using esoteric terms like 'imaginary numbers'.

edit: In the best humor, despite my better judgement, edited structure for clarity.

I'm sorry your response is so incoherent that I can't, even though I wish, contribute any more to this thread of the discussion.

I'm sorry you cannot read, or argue in good faith.

Even after the edit it's content- and sense-free, sorry.

Wow, you are hilarious.

Perhaps i should not have engaged with your original troll. I just thought it funny that it included the most misguided of arguments.

There surely are plenty of other, real arguments you could have used (which might have been an interesting conversation), or even plenty of valid criticisms of the paper that did not involve:

  1.scare quotes ("ideas")

  2.questioning the basis of academic enquiry (no, a cite does not take on an oeuvre)

  3.questioning the basis of language (words do actually contain specific meanings)

  4.just restating the problem. 

I guess instead of admitting your original post was without merit, or even doubling down and proving me wrong, you just abdicated, in the most withering way (and then doubled down on your abdication.. pathetic).