Consciousness question

[Iacchus]

Have to agree with Mercutio and Tricky, thats a good argument, and well presented, to show something that exists and can cease to exists like human consciousness.

No, consciousness is not a material thing. Or, if to any degree it is, we must also speak of the dualistic nature of energy when it is converted into matter.

If only Iacchus could stop pretending he "knows" and "understands" what you are talking about. But well, its not a perfect world.

I really haven't had the time to take it in, as I had just got through writing my previous response.

 

[Iacchus]

No. EMF can transmit data, however it isn't actually the EMF that IS the data, but rather the patterns the EMF is sent in. This can vary.

What if the EMF waveform was symmetrical and at constant frequency, say like a light wave? Isn't there enough information/data there to stimulate the eye? Obviously the oscillation factor can be interpreted as data. Especially when it entails a reaction to it by something else.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

There has to be a source (transmitter), a destination (receiver), and the means to convert and utilize the data (peripheral devices and whatnot) if, in fact this is what's being transmitted.

Computer model:

"source (transmitter)"= push of "L" on keyboard [this is not data by the way]causes stress on a piezoelectric device, generating current which follows a path leading to

"means to convert and utilize the data" = processor which receives incoming electrons, generates and steers more electrons to specific transistors in the RAM for data storage and other electrons to a processor that sends electrons to specific sites in a LCD display, causing certain pixels to turn black which

"destination (receiver)"= leads to limited photon emission very locally and is detected by an optoelectric device (human eye)

Brain model:

"source (transmitter)"= external stimuli [this is not data yet]

"means to convert and utilize the data" = processed by cerebral cortex and stored as data in the form of synapses within neurons where the data can be

"destination (receiver)"= accesses and shared with other parts of the brain and networked to define working internal models of reality and sense of self, internal monologue, mental images, etc. ..

In either model, "data" doesn't exist until external signals are detected and transfered to a processor that can interpret/store such signals as something meaningful (data). RAM and brains work the same way. Get rid of the electrons/synapse, the data is gone. What brings data into being is the prescence of transistors/neurons and the ability to organize external signals.

Take away the source of electrons (pull the plug) and the electrons flow to ground (lowest voltage potential).
Take away the ability to generate electronic pulses between neurons (oxygen starvation) and the cells die permanently.

Unless of course if consciousness is "broadcast" from some source other than the brain.

For your version to work, you require consciousness/data to be formulated first, then transmitted into the brain through some means other than the senses that connect to the cerebral cortex.

You assume this repeatedly with no basis except metaphors. The two models I describe HAPPEN. If you'd like to address a point of contention, please do so.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

EMF is light. Visible light is just a small band of all possible EMF frequencies.

And yes, it can be interpretted as data by the eye. And this is entirely my point. To a computer, data exists in the form of on and off over and over again.

To the eye, data exists... well in the same way really. In this case the on and off, from what I understand of the nature of how the eye works, comes in the form of whether or not light is hitting certain cells in the retina or not. That's all that matters. To different interpretation systems, data can and will be totally different. However, as a general rule if data specially encoded for one system is interpretted by another, it tends to become gibberish. Try loading up an image file in a text editor and it won't make any sense.

Off topic though... let's get back to the point. The light is only interpretted by it's presence. The actual light itself is not "data", it merely carries it.

If the world was filled with light coming equally from all directions at the same brightness without variance, it would be as meaningless as the old view of the ether. There would be nothing there you could call information.

It has to variate and have a system which can interpret it to actually become data. In the case of a single beam of light, you have closed the system too much. You have to expand the data system to not just that light beam, but also the parts where there is not a light beam or there are different sorts of light beams. Only in variation can data exist. So it is not the light beam by itself that is the data, it is also the lack of that light beam in other places and the fact that it occured at that moment and not at another time and a number of other "not the light beam" factors.

The basic unit of data is the bit. This is boolean (yes, no;true false;1,0;is, is not) logic. For something to be considered a 1, there has to be a possible 0 state, and visa versa.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Thanks SuperCoolGuy. That's what I've been driving at. Bleed off the electricity, destroy the RAM, and the data doesn't evaporate to some other location. It doesn't go to the ground with the electrons. There's no data encoded there. It simply doesn't exist.

What is the difficulty in understanding this? Yes, a lot of things can be used to transmit data IF used correctly, but the data isn't some actual property of the energy or the matter, it is a result of a series of reactions by a system that can manipulate data, whether that is a computer, a series of dominoes, or the human mind. You can knock over a bunch of dominos and send data that way. Depending on certain things a series of chain reactions can occur. You can think of certain "switches" as recieving data transmitted by the fall of a domino. You hit someone on the head with a rock, you have transmitted data using the rock into someone's head. The head interprets this data as a signal to cave in on itself (if you want to look at it like that, it doesn't show the symptoms of conciousness but it does show the symptom of doing what the universe does in such situations). If that rock didn't move from that spot, the only data it could transmit would be in the form of redirecting light into different directions and distorting space/time ever so slightly. I hope I'm not taking this into too much of a different direction, but I want to make it clear that data is not the energy or the matter at all, it is the current STATE of that energy and matter, and to a greater extent, the changes of state that matter and energy go through.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

No, consciousness is not a material thing. Or, if to any degree it is, we must also speak of the dualistic nature of energy when it is converted into matter.

Consciousness is the result of material processes happening in the brain.

The whole of sensory perception (cortex) entails energy transfer through matter-matter interactions.

What dualistic nature of energy? Wave-particle duality?

 

[Iacchus]

Thanks SuperCoolGuy. That's what I've been driving at. Bleed off the electricity, destroy the RAM, and the data doesn't evaporate to some other location. It doesn't go to the ground with the electrons. There's no data encoded there. It simply doesn't exist.

The data "continues on" through the series of events that occurs when it sets things in motion.

 

[Iacchus]

Thanks SuperCoolGuy. That's what I've been driving at. Bleed off the electricity, destroy the RAM, and the data doesn't evaporate to some other location. It doesn't go to the ground with the electrons. There's no data encoded there. It simply doesn't exist.

Oh, and let's not forget that the energy which is being used to maintain the ram is always being replenished, in which case it too can be viewed as a form of data, because this in fact is what's giving the RAM its cue ... to retain its state in the "on cycle."

 

[Mercutio]

Oh, and let's not forget that the energy which is being used to maintain the ram is always being replenished, in which case it too can be viewed as a form of data, because this in fact is what's giving the RAM its cue ... to retain its state in the "on cycle."

Oh, and let's not forget that the energy which is being used to maintain consciousness is always being replenished (you do eat, don't you?), in which case food can be viewed as a form of consciousness...? Ok, so either A) your analogy of consciousness and RAM breaks down OR B) your interpretation of the electricity coming in through the plug as "a form of data" is wrong.

I don't know enough about computers to say, but I am guessing C) both A and B.

 

[Iacchus]

Oh, and let's not forget that the energy which is being used to maintain consciousness is always being replenished (you do eat, don't you?), in which case food can be viewed as a form of consciousness...?

Data/information which tells the body what to do? Yes. Or, in this case the body would have to analyze the data contained within the food to determine whether it can utilize it or not. At either rate, there is an exchange of information going on here.

Ok, so either A) your analogy of consciousness and RAM breaks down OR B) your interpretation of the electricity coming in through the plug as "a form of data" is wrong.

I don't know enough about computers to say, but I am guessing C) both A and B.

Without data, I don't think anything would operate. In fact I don't think there would be any "matter" to speak of.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Very likely.

Iaachus, let's get right down to it.

Do you actually contend that the electricity itself IS the data? Is it your contention that the data still exists upon shutting down a computer and that if you fed that electricity straight into some other machine you could actually reclaim that data if you did it right?

This is false. Once again, the fact that energy and matter and so on are being used to create data is irrelevant. They are not actually the "data". It is the PROCESS that is the data, the current state and the states it changes into. The electricity that is in the ground is not currently in the computer. Whatever state it is in there, it is not in the same state it was in in the ground. As such, the data is gone.

We keep stumbling on this. You keep bringing up energy going in, some "constant replenishment". Yes, we have established that a computer's operations are a continous process.

Do you or do you not agree with my claim that it is the current state the computer is in that is the data and not actually the individual components? If you do not agree, offer some reason for this. So far, all you appear to be doing is manipulating words, but despite whatever semantic games you play with how electricity is needed, the electricity itself is not the actual data. It is the state of the logic gates (not the gates in and of themselves, but their state) that is the actual data.

I have tried submitting many analogies to get the idea across to you, just to get you to understand THIS analogy. However, you seem either unable or unwilling (I bank on the latter) to accept this.

Note that even if you do accept that this is the nature of information, this does not provide some absolute proof that a soul can't actually be from some higher plane (though to be honest I don't see how that would make life more worthwhile, that would still be some system of physics in and of itself which in the end needs to justify itself rather than have purpose assigned to it). You can still feel free to believe what you will. It is just a matter of accepting that there is no evidence in favor of it (as of yet anyway) and that there is easily the possibility that our mental states are merely the necessary result of our brains.

You keep avoiding the issue. Does the state of a coin's previous position continue to exist when you change that state?

 

[Mercutio]

Data/information which tells the body what to do? Yes. Or, in this case the body would have to analyze the data contained within the food to determine whether it can utilize it or not. At either rate, there is an exchange of information going on here.

Without data, I don't think anything would operate. In fact I don't think there would be any "matter" to speak of.

Um....any luck finding that biology book? It is not the data within the food that you need. Please try not to redefine "data" as "whatever I need it to be to keep me from abandoning this terrible analogy."

I mean, that is a stretch even for your dictionary.

 

[Iacchus]

Ok, so either A) your analogy of consciousness and RAM breaks down OR B) your interpretation of the electricity coming in through the plug as "a form of data" is wrong.

Yes, and it would require a conscious decision (again, in the form of data), not to mention the energy required to get up out of your chair, and walk over and turn the computer on and off. So guess what, everything is contingent upon both energy and data in this regard. In other words the "process" does not begin or end with the computer just sitting there of its own accord. It's not just sitting there out in the middle of nowhere. The data is always flowing, from one thing into the next, by means of energy.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Without data there could be no matter or energy to speak of? That is a meaningless statement, which you would know if you understood exactly what I have been saying this whole time.

Data can be, as I have shown, broken down simply into the current state of a thing and the changes it may go through. "Data" is simply a descriptive term, an assingment that things which are capable of manipulating data, such as us, have put to it. Much like the equator, it is a "thing" but it is nothing beyond it's definition.

It is the other way around. Data can't exist without matter energy or SOMETHING which can have a state to exist in. What you are saying is the equivilant of saying "grass could not exist without the color green".

 

[Mercutio]

Yes, and it would require a conscious decision (again, in the form of data), not to mention the energy required to get up out of your chair, and walk over and turn the computer on and off. So guess what, everything is contingent upon energy as well as data in this regard. In other words the "process" does not begin or end with the computer just sitting there of its own accord.

If you had taken the time to watch the videos, you would know that what you just said here is counter to the evidence of Libet's experiments. Your "conscious decision" is not a cause, but an effect.

You are redefining lots of things now...

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Yes, and it would require a conscious decision (again, in the form of data), not to mention the energy required to get up out of your chair, and walk over and turn the computer on and off. So guess what, everything is contingent upon energy as well as data in this regard. In other words the "process" does not begin or end with the computer just sitting there of its own accord.

Some of this is accurate. Most effects we have studied have a cause of some sort.

However, you misunderstand the role of "data". From what you have said, you seem to think "data" is some actual thing that actually sustains the universe. I have just posted why that is an inaccurate assessment.

I just want one thing from you. Do you or do you not agree that data is simply a consequence of the current state of matter and energy?

 

[Iacchus]

Um....any luck finding that biology book? It is not the data within the food that you need. Please try not to redefine "data" as "whatever I need it to be to keep me from abandoning this terrible analogy."

I mean, that is a stretch even for your dictionary.

And, if in the process of digestion, the body doesn't recognize the necessary signal/data associated with the food, it will reject it.

 

[Mercutio]

And, if in the process of digestion, the body doesn't recognize the necessary signal/data associated with the food, it will reject it.

You are stretching the word "data" well beyond its breaking point, Iacchus. And you are anthropomorphising the process of digestion. There is no "recognition" in the ordinary sense of the word, and "reject" is also used in an active sense when it is not called for.

Please, prove me wrong. Find and cite a biology text to support your claim.

 

[Iacchus]

You are stretching the word "data" well beyond its breaking point, Iacchus. And you are anthropomorphising the process of digestion. There is no "recognition" in the ordinary sense of the word, and "reject" is also used in an active sense when it is not called for.

Please, prove me wrong. Find and cite a biology text to support your claim.

There is no process of digestion unless one chemical is capable of recognizing (hence interacting with) the next. If this doesn't require some form of data/information, what then?

 

[Iacchus]

I just want one thing from you. Do you or do you not agree that data is simply a consequence of the current state of matter and energy?

If we were in fact living in a type of Matrix, we would indeed be passing data through some form of energy field/grid, to tell this material reality how to behave. And yes, I believe something like this is the case.