A discussion about experience

[DonSchaeffer]

Pardon me for putting this up. I have been in discussion on another forum about this and I wanted to bring it here.

Re: What is a tumor?
#22 Post by DonSchaeffer » Fri Dec 01, 2023 11:13 am

I love your explanations. Thank you for them. The trouble with me is I am stuck on the level of experience--why did nature bother with that? Can the chemistry of the "vegetable kingdom" support anything like that? Why does the animal kingdom--or any other kingdom--support that? When I say "experience" what am I talking about. I say the words and it throws me into a miasma where there is no longer a discussion. I have always been disappointed that we can't find the words to even describe consciousness in language that anyone understands. Sorry. I lapse into dreams.

[Frankiev]

Are you talking about individual consciousness or some mystical universal consciousness. The former being at the forefront of research in neuroscience, whereas the latter is in the domain of the philosopher?

[Polymerase]

These are big questions.

My unpleasantness: To experience anything, one needs to be conscious. Is consciousness a matter of neurochemistry? If so, what distinguishes one individual from another?
Is there such an entity as a soul? Is such a soul an electrochemical phenomenon? Or could we imagine that our consciousness stems from phenomena we can’t measure or observe directly?
I do experience this discussion - but how?

[DonSchaeffer]

I don't think we are ready for this discussion. It may be decades or centuries for them. I am glad you have the questions. The problem has to do with the gaps between event and experience, outside and inside. We are spoiled between the limiters from behaviorism and our reluctance to look broadly at what we see.

[Polymerase]

I don't think we are ready for this discussion. It may be decades or centuries for them. I am glad you have the questions. The problem has to do with the gaps between event and experience, outside and inside. We are spoiled between the limiters from behaviorism and our reluctance to look broadly at what we see.

I don’t think there is any reluctance to look broadly. It is more of a matter of coping with a processable amount of data. Aiming to broadly is a surefire way to throw money out of the window on the road to losing overview and drowning in irrelevant questions rising from a poorly selected pool of too many complex problems at once.

I went into that hole last year. On writing a covid paper, I failed to limit my scope of investigation, and was initially told that my work was too comprehensive for a scientific paper, but looked like a summary for a ph.d. That was somewhat a waste of time. I could have spent that time on choosing the most relevant part of my work, and worked on that to write a manuscript that would be accepted.

[DonSchaeffer]

I understand the problem. I have lots of hairbrained theories, some of which I toyed with as a grad student to the chagrin of my professors. I still see some of those hairbrained ideas dangled in front of me and I am tempted--tempted to grab one but I better not! I always had ambitious ideas throughout my Ph.D. program and published a lot of them. I got my Ph.D. only after I nearly got thrown out of grad school. I didn't get very far in the profession. Now I'm 83 and still tinkering.

[Phill Brown]

Complex replication of replacement parts.
Experimental solutions to conditions that are in the future.
Perfect solutions to an environment that changed become redundant.
Energy is transformed by interaction.
It's not impossible to transform from something that can be measured to something that we no longer have access, W.Sidis black and white or balance or imbalance of the shadow.
A life is but a thread of gossamer,
or did I misunderstand the question?

[charlie g]

Please be patient with yourself, Don, these are exciting times for pondering the theory of mind, the theories of consciousness/ self consciousness.

" Putting Ourselves Back in the Equation: Why Physicists Are studying Human Consciousness and AI to Unravel the Mysteries of the Universe", George Musser, 2023.

Scientific American, 12/ 2023, page 88 review of this book ( the book: $30 USD): " Karl Friston's predictive coding theory says that our consciousness arises from the constant updating of a processing pipeline that both receives and

predicts information- that is, our expectations also make our reality. Meanwhile Giulio Tononi's integrated information theory proposes that consciousness is the result of networks working together in harmony.

It's the systemic unity that unleashes an emergent property of conscious awareness greater than the underlying parts alone.".


Consider 'going humble and respectful of vegetation vrs animal properties of consciousness. charlie g

[Frankiev]

the systemic unity that unleashes an emergent property of conscious awareness greater than the underlying parts alone.".
This is a succinct summary. A theory to which I can align myself, and one which only stands by virtue that it has been arrived at by reason.....one of the four foundations of knowledge according to Descartes. Like all theories, it will stand until surpassed by further evidence.
I knew a man, a preacher actually, who, when talking about faith used an interesting phrase to describe how we can know God...." You know it in your ' knower' ". As though there's some other subconscious part of us that just knows things. Simple ?..naive...?....silly? Yes, but, to quote a fascinating video title " What the bleep do we know?"

[Polymerase]

Again, the question of experience boils down to the question of consciousness. We cannot experience without being conscious. And being conscious, experience forms memories. The human ability to recall experiences is, unfortunately, notoriously unreliable, and memories tend to change over time. Not in essence, but in details. sometimes in great detail.

In a Cartesian view, our consciousness is stated in the utterly problematic “Cogito ergo sum.” This implies that the ability to think is an inherent property of existence. This might be true for individuals belonging to the homo sapiens sapiens taxa, but we do not know if this connection is universally acceptable, and it may oppose the conception of an immortal soul. Do trees think? If not, do they exist? Do they experience anything? Is selection through evolution some sort of experience? The Cartesian cogito is limited by the questionable term “truth.”

This leads us to Pilate’s “quid est veritas?” The truth, as we sense it, is limited by our own senses, capabilities and interpretations. What we perceive as true, may be very far from any reproduceable fact. If your only reference to coloscopy is that your aunt died during examination, you might easily perceive it as a very damgerous procedure. However, seeing the total number of coloscopies against the crude number of deaths during or after the procedure (including those who are not causative), the procedure suddenly appears safe. We are not made to see such conclusions without a formal framework to help us acquire the entire picture. Our sense are not good enough to draw conclusions in complex matters. This is where the scientific method comes to play, to release our preconceptions and emotional restraints, treating the bare data isolated from belief, conviction, emotion or sensory misconception. This way, we can approach something that resembles truth, but represents nothing but the greater likelihood that our assumptions are right.

Due to the subjective nature of consciousness, and the lack of data to support what causes it, we are yet uncapable of investigating it in a scientific manner. That means experience still is a subjective matter, that may not be commendible to rely on. Amd this is why I hate it when physicians say “in my experience….” Your experience may not be adequate to conclude, but it may also contain implementation of sufficient data to do so. Your experience may also incorporate the study of large data sets (i.e. research), but experience per se does not vouch for good decisions.

At present, I think I’ve reached the point where my brain melts. I can feel it pour out of my nostrils. I think I know something about science. In philosophy, I am hardly a novice. I’ve reached the point where I am no longer certain what I am discussing. Or if I am discussing the same topic as the rest of you.

[Frankiev]

This is fodder for another forum really, It's too far removed from microscopy. So as they say " I'm out "

Interesting all the same.

[DonSchaeffer]

Wow! The warmth of this conversation is enough to heat a home for a month or so. I love it. All I know is perception is a form of measurement where there are extension dimensions (in humans they are time, vertical, horizontal) and intensive dimensions that vary spread over the extensions (color, loudness, pitch, brightness and the like). And those are the basics of where we live. Without both these kinds of variables we would be unconscious. If the quantity of any of these dimensions would be zero, we would be unconscious. Even blind and deaf people experience both kinds of variables. In deaf people and blind people the intensive dimensions are internally--not externally produced.

[charlie g]

Respectfully, Frankiev, there is a segment : 'Off Topic' in this microscopy forum...in wonderful astronomy forum: "Cloudy Nights.com"..there is a similar: 'off topic forum'. You need not announce your 'out of here'/ ' your gone.'...but please consider the wonderful knowledge this thread alludes to..affecting our world views.

Respectfully all who ponder these issues of: mind/consciousness/self consciousness ...be patient with yourselves...research and myriad collaborations between different sciences are underway..we forum microscopists are more than enabled by 'microscopy world views nourished by better understandings of our minds world views'...be excited, be humble, enjoy laypersons reports ( Sci.American, Sci Digest, etc., etc. ) .

" In Brook and Bayou, or Life in Still Waters", Clara Kern Bayliss, Febuary, 1897, a USA 'home improvement/ home reading book for children and adults...: " Authors Introduction> " The lower forms of animals are almost indistinguishable from plant forms, yet there is a wide difference between the animal and vegetable kingdoms. The very name animal,from animus,mind,shows that the possessor is allied to the spiritual kingdom.

The lowest animal has what the plant has not-volition or power of choosing, if it be only the choice of moving or remaining at rest.

In this book we have considered a low order of unicellular plants, the Desmids and Diatoms , which may be said to have been caught in the act of turning into animals; yet even here we have found phenomena of

marvelous interest and prophecies of greater things to come."/ authors introduction, page: xiii


Sadly with: 'AI' now being nested in our societies....who knows who is capable of directing outcomes with the least harms ( when our son was an adolescent, I often quipped with him, as we played: "Magic Cards", or Poke-mon games ...I often asked him if the 'game went on when he and I stopped playing'..'if Poke-mon continued when we shut the hand device off and walked away form this variety of: 'game-boy'.

I in playful sport suggested to our dear son..that when 'AI/conscious-AI' first emerges..the first thing it will do is: "lie to us humans"..it will not 'show it's consciousness..why imperile itself??!!'.

Thanks again, Don, for a thoughtful/ off topic thread. charlie g

[Frankiev]

Apologies to charlie g and Don. As a newbie to Microbehunter, I hadn't noticed that there was a miscellaneous forum.

[Phill Brown]

Looking into the microscope is not without risk.
Go with the flow.
Some of the greatest insights come from polymaths.
Whether to listen to under milk wood or choosing with great consideration what not to own.

[Polymerase]

I do not go with flow. I follow the data. Optimally, that means going with the flow, but I do not allow myself to forget that deviant opinions is what has driven science forward. As long as such opinions are supported by scientific data, that is.

Remember: the plural of anecdote is not data!

The risk connected to looking into a microscope, is gaining new experience. Having been addicted to such new experiences over many years, what frightens me the most is not the diversity of existence, but the extreme coherence of all matter and phenomena. The great consistency of the physical world is stunning, shocking and frightening - and at the same time exceptionally delightful!

It has been proposed that the way to true happiness is ignorance. I think I would benefit from a bit more ignorance, but I have stepped to far into the realms of knowledge. Which makes me feel incredibly ignorant because of all the emerging questions deriving from the knowledge I have gained.

[DonSchaeffer]

You know what? The findings in recent biology and the explorations in exo-biology are pointing to mysterious things. Some one will find something interesting soon--it will shake us up.

[Polymerase]

You know what? The findings in recent biology and the explorations in exo-biology are pointing to mysterious things. Some one will find something interesting soon--it will shake us up.

Would you please point to some of the findings you refer to? I am very curious of what you refer to.
And I am not easily shaken (nor easily stirred). Morevoer, being part of a major shift of paradigm would be extremely exciting. And frustrating. But as stated - I follow the data. Not my personal beliefs or conviction.

[DonSchaeffer]

You got me! I can't say anything beyond my sci-fi trained brain. It tortures me! And I am used to disappointment when it comes to spectacular and scary new truth. We keep looking and I have faith (is that the right word) that we are going to be frightened out of our boots very soon.

[Alan Smith]

These are big questions.

My unpleasantness: To experience anything, one needs to be conscious. Is consciousness a matter of neurochemistry? If so, what distinguishes one individual from another?
Is there such an entity as a soul? Is such a soul an electrochemical phenomenon? Or could we imagine that our consciousness stems from phenomena we can’t measure or observe directly?
I do experience this discussion - but how?

When unconscious you experience unconsciousness. But when waking you just find it hard to recall what it was like,

[Phill Brown]

As a thought experiment.
While in a room you look at the ceiling.
You know what is beyond it but you have to devise an experiment for someone who has never been outside that there is anything beyond the boundary they can see.
It's easier to see with reasoning that what is beyond is still there.
We can experience things that move our boundaries.
Synesthesia allows some to experience everyday life in a different way.
Basic science has come up with the cell phone.
It's still a brick but to some it's Star Trek.

[Polymerase]

When unconscious you experience unconsciousness. But when waking you just find it hard to recall what it was like,

Are you sure? Consciousness is what you can sense. While unconscious, you are essentially turned off, and sensory capability is voided. Therefore, you do not experience unconsciousness, but gain the experience of knowing you have been unconscious - that is, you know you have been deprived of your senses for a period of time that you do not essentially know the duration of.
This is a bit like the classic problem “if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody hears it - does it really make sound?” I don’t think this brings us anywhere.

Even those who experience long term coma have certain recollections of dreaming and (often unpleasant) external stimuli. That means there is an intermittent (at least partial) consciousness present. Experiencing unconsciousness is very contradictory. If you wish to go further on that thought, you are stepping into the realm of religious beliefs regarding a secondary or “hidden” consciousness exclusive to the vaguely defined term “soul.” This is a matter unavailable for scientific investigation with our present tools, and therefore not very likely to yield any useful data.

[Alan Smith]

Are you sure that unconsciousness is not experienced while unconscious? While it would seem to be the case, you cannot prove it to be the case, see also 'Popper's falsification'.

[DonSchaeffer]

I agree. When you sleep you are only unconscious to someone conscious who observes you. Then there is a block to prevent you from recalling what happened when you were unconscious. People who study dreams find that if a sleeper is aroused suddenly during sleep (especially during the REM portion of sleep) the sleeper can reports dreams at much greater depth than if they wake normally. Researcher use Rapid Eye Movement indicators to wake people during the dreaming phase and find enormous detail in the reports that result. That is how dream research is conducted.

Now we don't know just how valid sleep research is. We really can't know. It's all pie in the sky questions but indicators do suggest a lot of things going on in sleep or even coma.

[Polymerase]

Are you sure that unconsciousness is not experienced while unconscious? While it would seem to be the case, you cannot prove it to be the case, see also 'Popper's falsification'.

From a neurologic perspective there is no indication that any experience of one’s own consciousness is present during unconsciousness. Discussing this topic further, brings us to more of a metaphysic discussion that falls out of the scope of scientific investigation.

You may be thinking of the intermittent consciousness observed occasionally when a patient wakes up under anaesthesia due to unexpected response to or unusually fast metabolism of anaesthetic agents - but this is intermittent episodes during deeply unconscious states, and sholud not be confused with one another. Usually, such episodes are so short, that a complete amnesia is observed after waking the patient up. This, in effect, also means that no experience is taking place, as the experience has failed to be integrated in memory.

We can only investigate what we can measure and observe. As such, the problem in question cannot be examined by scientific method. We can only hypothesize from EEG readings, and try to estimate the likelihood of any conscious process during unconsciousness. It is quite contradictory. We may need to use another term than “unconsciousness” if going further on the subject.

[Polymerase]

I agree. When you sleep you are only unconscious to someone conscious who observes you. Then there is a block to prevent you from recalling what happened when you were unconscious. People who study dreams find that if a sleeper is aroused suddenly during sleep (especially during the REM portion of sleep) the sleeper can reports dreams at much greater depth than if they wake normally. Researcher use Rapid Eye Movement indicators to wake people during the dreaming phase and find enormous detail in the reports that result. That is how dream research is conducted.

Now we don't know just how valid sleep research is. We really can't know. It's all pie in the sky questions but indicators do suggest a lot of things going on in sleep or even coma.

Sleep is not unconsciousness. It is a state of reduced neurologic activity, but the reticular formation of the brainstem still keeps you in a state capable of responding to external stimuli. The consciousness of sleep states is different from being awake, but you are not unconscious while sleeping, and will respond normally to stimuli from the environment, and you are experiencing psychodynamic phenomena in the form of dreams - which can even be affected by subconscious responses to environmental stimuli.

We do know how valid sleep research is - from a scientific way of measuring. But certain aspects cannot be investigated, because valid data cannot be generated. Therefore, we must approach it from an angle in which we can observe certain parameters of measurable physical properties. I really don’t want to argue, or say you are wrong, but we need to follow the data. If not, we are merely speculating.

I think your stand is more of a philosophical one. I don’t mind, but we need to be conscious of what we are discussing. Maybe I am in the wrong discussion?

[DonSchaeffer]

Are you being a complete reductionist? I like to add a little bit of intellectual spice to the broth.

[Polymerase]

Are you being a complete reductionist? I like to add a little bit of intellectual spice to the broth.

Would you care to elaborate? I think we need valid data to conclude, that is all. If you wish to set science aside, and delve into the metaphysical speculation, that is completely ok. But I am afraid I have no say in that context. I think science is the only way we can understand our surroundings without being blinded by our own limitations. That is my stance. I have been trying to grasp what you are searching for, but I am afraid it eludes me.

I hope I haven’t stepped on your toes. That was never my intention.

[DonSchaeffer]

My toes are not vulnerable. Don't worry. I believe that empirical science needs theory and speculation or it gets nowhere. Minds have to interpret data and have to move beyond just what we see to include interpretation and speculation. Purely objective recounting of absolute fact never got us anywhere. We have to rely on testing speculation. I am not in favor of pure speculation but we don't generate real knowledge without theory.

[Polymerase]

Thanks, Don!
Actually, I do agree with you! Dreaming and speculations are absolutely necessary. We just need to distill those dreams into something we can examine. As I stated earlier - deviant thinking pushes science forward. But we still need to be meticulous and methodical.
We are not so far apart as you might think.