I take my cue from the physics of information theory and computation. In that view a computation is a process physically performed by a system. The same applies to mathematical calculations. The result exist independently in some transcendent sense, but in order to actually obtain a result a physical system has to perform the process. That physical system exists independently of the abstract mathematics, and independently of any other system performing the same calculation, or computation.
In the same way my brain can have a thought. I can perceive a colour. The pattern of activity might be extremely close to the activity associated with you perceiving the same colour. It might be identical with the pattern of an identical clone or twin of mine experiencing the same perception. Nevertheless they are separate, unconnected, completely independent activities that just happen to have similar interpretations.
That's a strict physicalist view, and it's one I subscribe to as being the most plausible. Nevertheless I'm a human being, I have children, I care about my family and friends, and humanity generally. So clearly patterns matter to me as a person, but that's just in my nature. I don't see any reason to think it's fundamental to anything, because thinking that way IMHO leads to some very wooly thinking. just because gold is shiny and pretty, that doesn't mean I think there's something cosmically magical or special about those wavelengths of light. The experience and appreciation of things is important to us, but it doesn't define reality.
So if consciousness exists in the same manner that imaginary lines you draw between stars - fine. Why does it matter?
It doesn't need to matter to you, it only needs to matter to them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theor...
The lines you describe are placed by your intuition. Most math is intuitive as such, and exists outside of mind, which is why anybody can "discover" axioms, ratios, etc.
If your notion was correct, only a perfect atomic ordering inside the brain would create a precise and useful thought, such as how to find the ratio of radius to diameter.
Or so it seems. It's entirely possible that consciousness is just post-factum rationalization of what the body did.
Have you noticed that sometimes you make a decision but don't do it, and sometimes you make a decision and do it?
> If your notion was correct, only a perfect atomic ordering inside the brain would create a precise and useful thought, such as how to find the ratio of radius to diameter.
Does not follow.
If that were the sole reality my case would still stand, for you then become aware of something you did, and react; ergo consciousness does effect the body, etc. This is basic physics.
Nor does your argument exclude mine. Why would you need consciousness if it was merely "post-factum rationalization" with no feedback effect? By your logic, we could live exactly the same without the consciousness.
consciousness can be a side effect, like log files. Every time you send an email you get a line in log files, but the email wasn't sent BECAUSE of log files.
> Why would you need consciousness if it was merely "post-factum rationalization" with no feedback effect?
This is a good argument. It could be like the concept of color. We needed a way to distinguish good and bad food, so we have color vision and we created the concept of colors (which are simplifications and abstractions of real world, but useful ones).
And when we have these abstractions we use them sometimes in ways that have no relation to reality, like talking about feeling "blue".
Similarly we needed a way to know where to stop when searching for root cause on cause-effect tree. When somebody hits you with a stick it's useful to attack that person and not the stick (too early termination) or their mother (too late). So our models of the world had to have the concept of agency and consciousness. It doesn't matter that the concept is correct, it just needs to be useful. Just like naive understanding of physics like "everything thrown falls down and everything slows to a halt if not pushed" is wrong, but useful so we have it built-in.
These calculations don't need to be conscious, consciousness can still be an illusion, but the distinction remains useful.
If you insist we learn from our memories that are constructed around the concept of consciousness - therefore consciousness have effect on our lives - I can grant you that, but that doesn't mean consciousness is real any more than kids behaving well to get presents prove the existence of Santa Claus.
Absolutely. Sometimes I'll notice in my meditation practice that something will arise and then I'll watch it get labeled by my brain and brought into cognition, but there is a gap between it. It's like watching the brain/body work something out and then present it to your awareness.
I think abstract reasoning can be done by machines (up to a point) and I have also spent enough time online to know that we humans are not always capable of exercising it, even if we seem conscious. I don’t understand why you say I mistake the two.
The invisible line can very well be a line on a map that defines where a highway gets build.
The last part about perfect atomic ordering, I didn’t understand, sorry.
If you consider that only the atoms "count" for existing, then the line does not exist. (Neither do the stones, by the way - since they are constantly exchanging minor quantities of atoms and electrons with the rest of the environment, the set that defines what each stone is is constantly changing. But let's ignore that bit). The line is a "mathematical abstraction", layered on top of the "real" world.
Now consider that you measure and define exactly where that line is, according to the system of coordinates that you prefer.
Now imagine that you remove the three stones. Now there's no atoms "sustaining" that the line any more. But in a sense the line is "still there", it's defined by the coordinates you wrote. It can be argued that it has always "existed" - before you put the stones there, before Earth existed, that particular line in space already "was", in the same sense that numbers "are" - that the line has existed in some way or another since Space itself started existing.
You now pick 3 bottle caps and put them on top of the line again. Now the line is again defined by 3 clumps of matter. Does it "exist" any more than it existed in the previous two cases?
It all comes down to how we use the verb "exist" - it means several things depending on the context. "Exist" in the atoms world, or "exist" as information.
I believe that mind and consciousness is a bit of the same thing, just many orders of magnitude bigger. Instead of 3 stones what defines a mind is trillions of neurons arranged in a certain way. I am materialistic, but I believe in the be encoding of information. To me this means that each mind, at some point in time, can absolutely be "encoded" into a big enough number (huge, billions of trillions of digits). So in that sense minds are "defined by atoms" but also "exist independently of atoms, and are eternal".