TPF : Consciousness Illusion

[Gnomon]

Is consciousness, or the mind, merely an ‘illusion’?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/640512


I believe that nowadays, with the benefit of modern science and an understanding that the source ancient ‘thinking’ that led to dualism was relatively uninformed, we can dispense with the illusion of consciousness, or the mind, and shift our perspective away from these imagined ethereal forms. — Brock Harding

Yes. Consciousness is not a magic trick, but it is imaginary. Everything we are aware of is an image (or meaning) created by the Brain to represent the reality "out there". According to Daniel Dennett, those "unreal" pictures are projected onto the Cartesian Theater screen. And that mental mirror of the world is what I call "Ideality".

Donald Hoffman calls those subjective images "icons", referring to the little simplified symbols on a computer screen that represent the complex processing operations going on inside the CPU. Those subjective images may create an "illusion", but they are all we ever know about objective reality. "A map is not the territory". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80 ... y_relation

Those "projections" in the mind are "illusory" in the same sense that a slice of reality recorded on film, when projected on a 2D screen, creates the illusion of dynamic 3D reality. Those mental images are also "ethereal" in the sense of "lacking material substance". They do have a real material substrate (neurons), but the pictures are ideal immaterial concepts. So, in my personal blog, I reconcile the ancient notion of real-vs-ideal or Qualia-vs-Quanta Dualism with the modern doctrine of all-encompassing Materialism, in a monistic philosophical perspective I call "BothAnd".

The Case Against Reality :
The interface theory of perception
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman

IDEALITY SYMBOLIZES REALITY
1*AP15N3XJJVnWoCUQWAwVbQ.png

CARTESIAN THEATER
Cartesian_Theater.jpg

[Gnomon]

Iirc Dennett's description here is meant to be disparaging. Good post though, I enjoyed it a lot. — Kenosha Kid

Yes. He was trying to show a materialistic alternative to dualism. But he merely succeeded in kicking the immaterial can down the road.

Kick the can down the road :
put off confronting a difficult issue or making an important decision, typically on a continuing basis.

[Gnomon]

My citing of consciousness, mind etc is in the context of the dualistic view which I understand is why those terms were created. I guess the term consciousness etc is so ingrained into our modern vocabulary/concepts that it means different things to different people. — Brock Harding

Yes. Even devout materialists use different words for Qualia (Mind, Consciousness, etc) and Quanta (Brain, Neural Nets). Their explanation for the implicit recognition of immaterial Qualia is that such ghostly invisible entities are merely epi-phenomena (functions) of underlying physical mechanisms. Hence, Qualia are caused by physical processes, but have no causal powers of their own. So, Matter is primary & fundamental, while Mind is secondary & useless (illusory).

However, some scientists have concluded that the qualitative Mind Stuff we call "Information" is actually the fundamental "substance" of the real world. Moreover, some physicists have equated Information with Energy, which implies that the same Mind Stuff can be both Physical and Causal. If so, then we could take a Monistic worldview, based on Information as the Essence or Single Substance (Spinoza) of the universe : Enformationism.

In that case, both Energy & Matter would be epi-phenomena. Yet, although I wouldn't call them "illusory", we are only conscious of Energy & Mass as ideas (information) in the Mind. That's because, as Kant noted, we never know the "thing itself", but only our mental model of a material thing.

Epiphenomenalism is the view that mental events are caused by physical events in the brain, but have no effects upon any physical events.

epiphenomenal qualia :
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2960077

Is Information Fundamental? :
Could information be the fundamental "stuff" of the universe?
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/i ... ndamental/

The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

[Gnomon]

"Consciousness" is phenomenal awareness of mind. Mind(ing) tracks and resolves 'discontinuities' between memories & expections or expections & predictions in order to adaptively coordinate behavior with(in) social / natural environment(s). — 180 Proof

I was not familiar with the term "phenomenal consciousness", so I Googled it. After a brief review, I can see that the theory is more complex & technical than a cursory overlook could suffice for understanding. But the key concept seems to be based on Holistic Emergence. So, on the face of it, their hypothesis sounds compatible with my own notion of Consciousness as an Emergent phenomenon of Information processing in the Brain.

The authors of the article linked below, even quote one of my favorite physicists, Paul Davies, about the "emergentist hypothesis". I don't know if they also refer to one of Davies' cutting-edge concepts in Physics : that "shape-shifting" Information (or EnFormAction as I call it) is the essence of both Energy & Matter, as they interact to form emergent Whole Systems, with novel properties & functions, from a selection of otherwise independent Parts. From that perspective, the Conscious Mind emerges not just from a Material Brain, but ultimately from the Immaterial Information that is knitted-together into novel patterns of inter-relationships, which humans interpret as Meaning.

Phenomenal Consciousness and Emergence :
In this paper, we discuss the critical role emergence plays in creating phenomenal consciousness and how this role helps explain what appears to be a scientific explanatory gap between the subjective experience and the brain, but which is actually not a scientific gap at all.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 01041/full
Note -- Consciousness is a philosophical gap in primacy & category : Which comes first "physical form" or "metaphysical design"? Which is more important "awareness" or "physical substance"? Which is more crucial "knowing" or "sensing"?

Davies, P. (2006). “Preface,” in The Re-Emergence of Emergence: The Emergentist Hypothesis from Science to Religion, eds P. Clayton and P. Davies (Oxford: Oxford University Press), ix–xiv.

Life, the Universe, and Everything :
"I think we begin to see that if information can have causal leverage over matter, . . ."
https://physicsworld.com/a/life-the-uni ... ul-davies/

Holistic Emergence of Mind :
For example, at levels of low complexity, exchanges of information are merely what physicists call “energy”, which is “doing” without “knowing”. Only at higher levels of intricacy and entanglement do the conscious properties of Mind emerge from Material stuff.
BothAnd Blog ; Post 6 -- Alternative Theory of Reality


'Consciousness is secondary – much more veto than volo – and confabulatory', perhaps selected for as a beneficial social-coordination adaptation which functions as the 'phenomenal complement' to natural language usage. — 180 Proof

I can agree with this assertion. But not necessarily with its implication that Consciousness is a second-class phenomenon in the material world. Astronomers are eagerly searching for signs of Life ex-terra, but ultimately what they seek is creatures like humans, that are aware of what's going on. To discover a Mindless world may be even more disappointing than a Lifeless planet.

My own assessment is that the human notion of FreeWill is "more veto than volo". But what little agency (e.g. executive veto) we do have, is more precious than gold & diamonds, or life itself, to those who can choose the next fork in their path of Life, and to express the thought uppermost in their own Mind.

PS___I also concur with the "Phenomenal" article, that the "explanatory gap" in understanding Consciousness, is a philosophical quest instead of a scientific gap. Empirical scientists are usually content with dissecting a "problem" into its constituent parts. But theoretical philosophers, such as David Chalmers, cannot rest until they put all those puzzle pieces back together again to form a Whole picture of a living & thinking phenomenon.

[Gnomon]

Information is a material notion. It describes the spatial relationships between particles. — Raymond

Yes, but Information is also an immaterial function. In my thesis, Information is the fundamental "substance" (Aristotle : essence) of the world. So, Matter, Energy, & Mind are various forms of shape-shifting Information. That's why I noted that "Mind emerges not just from a Material Brain, but ultimately from the Immaterial Information".

Information : Shannon vs Deacon :
Originally, the word “information” referred to the meaningful software contents of a mind, which were assumed to be only loosely shaped by the physical container : the hardware brain. But in the 20th century, the focus of Information theory has been on its material form as changes in copper wires & silicon circuits & neural networks. Now, Terrence Deacon’s book (Incomplete Nature : How Mind Emerged From Matter) about the Causal Power of Absence requires another reinterpretation of the role of Information in the world. He quotes philosopher John Collier, “The great tragedy of formal information theory [Shannon] is that its very expressive power is gained through abstraction away from the very thing that it has been designed to describe.” Claude Shannon’s Information is functional, but not meaningful. So now, Deacon turns the spotlight on the message rather than the medium.
BothAnd Blog 4, post 80.

Information -- What is It? :
But perhaps the most fundamental enigma is the ultimate “nature” of Information itself. The original usage of the term was primarily Functional, as the content of memory & meaning. Then Shannon turned his attention to the Physical aspects of data transmission. Now, Deacon has returned to the most puzzling aspect of mental function : Intentions & Actions. For example : a> how one person’s mind can convey meaning & intentions to another mind; b> how a subjective intention (Will) can result in physical changes to the objective world. How can invisible intangible immaterial (absent) ideas cause physical things to move & transform. Occultists have imagined Mind as a kind of mystical energy or life-force (Chi; psychokinesis) that can be directed outward into the world, like a laser beam, to affect people and objects. But Deacon is not interested in such fictional fantasies. Instead, he tries to walk a fine line between pragmatics & magic, or physics & metaphysics.
BothAnd Blog 4, post 80.

[Gnomon]

Dunno. This directs attention away from the matter itself. And, so I think, that's exactly the stuff conscious resides in. — Raymond

Yes. That was the point of my post. Mind & Consciousness are not material things, but immaterial mathematical functions. A "function" is a relationship (ratio ; pattern), not a physical object. We typically refer to those Menta-Physical concepts (ideas ; symbols) with nouns, as-if they are tangible things. But the Mind is an Information Processor (not the machine, but the logical procedure) which receives raw sensory information Input and changes it into symbolic Meaning (significance to Self) as the Output.

Since Shannon reified Information (abstract ideas) as-if they are chunks (bits & bytes) of matter, many people imagine "Information" as some kind of ectoplasmic "stuff", that is stored in the brain. But it's "stuff" only in a metaphorical sense. Yet, those mental images are actually abstractions of mathematical logic, in the form of relationships between sensory inputs and mental outputs. Information is stored in the Brain in the form of abstract patterns of relationships. Mind pictures are like the illusory images we see on a movie screen. Metaphors are Meta-Physical. Much of our philosophical disputes are not about the facts, but the significance of metaphors.


What is a Function? :
A function relates an input to an output. ... It is like a machine that has an input and an output. And the output is related somehow to the input.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/sets/function.html
Note -- a function is an abstract relationship, like a mathematical ratio

Process :
a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.
Note -- actions are not physical objects, but changes in the objects

Symbolic :
a representation of a thing, not the thing-in-itself

Reify :
make (something abstract) seem more concrete or real.
Note -- imagining a bit or byte of Information as-if it is a material object makes it seem more realistic.

Abstraction :
The act of obtaining or removing something from a source : the act of abstracting something, a general idea or quality, rather than an actual person, object, or ...
Note -- The mental processing of incoming sensations filters-out the material "stuff", leaving only the "general idea" of the specific thing represented. The result is a Qualia, not a Quanta. The Idea of a thing is its abstract logical structure, along with attributed Properties or Qualities.

PS___The Beatles' Days in the life says : "he blew his mind out in a car". In this poetic sense, "mind" is a metaphor for "brain". Yet, it wasn't actually "mind" splattered on the roof of the car. People often to equate the function with the material. But they are as different as "heat" and "heater". Heat is a physical process, but it has no material substance. In that comparison, Mind is like Energy : invisible & intangible but sensible & knowable. We "sense" the Mind with our sixth sense of Rational Inference.

[Gnomon]

Qualia are caused by physical processes, but have no causal powers of their own. — Gnomon
Hi. Picking on qualia is a hobbyhorse for me lately, so please pardon a question. How would one establish that qualia are caused by something? — ajar

First, I need to clarify that the quoted phrase is my interpretation of an interpretation that I don't agree with : that Qualia have no causal powers. As ideas (beliefs) in the mind, Qualia do have a causal role in human behavior.

Regarding the "how" of "establishing that qualia are caused by something", you can refer to neuroscience articles such as those linked below.

Qualia are the subjective or qualitative properties of experiences. ... in terms of the causal role it plays in our mental life:
https://iep.utm.edu/qualia/

Information and the Origin of Qualia :
The cause of sensory qualia is just the same as all the other experiences, it just happens to be focussed on sensory perception.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 00022/full

[Gnomon]

I just browsed the second link. It seems to completely miss the logical-semantic issue (as perhaps you do), and it's hard to gauge a priori whether it's published by cranks.
If you've actually read it, perhaps you'll be willing to summarize the argument for conclusion #3 below, namely the qualia of our inner conscious world are information messages. — ajar

I don't know anything about the Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience organization. But, FWIW, the author of the article, Roger Orpwood, is a researcher at the Centre for Pain Research, Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath, UK. The "frontiers" label might indicate a focus on pushing the envelope of Neuroscience knowledge. Whether that qualifies as "crank", I don't have enough information to say.

The Information & Qualia article, in general, agrees with my own understanding of how information processing works in the brain/mind. Apparently, you have a problem with their assertion that : "The qualia of our inner conscious world are information messages". But it makes sense to me, in the light of cutting-edge Neuroscience and Information Theory. So, as requested, here's my summary of the argument :

1. Qualia are abstract concepts in the mind, that result from sensory stimulation. The typical example is to point out that there is no Redness in red light. Instead, it's an interpretation in the mind.

2. Information is an abstract pattern that carries Potential Meaning. For example, Morse Code is merely a series of dots & dashes (symbols) that can be interpreted by prepared minds as meaningful Information.

3. Messages are the semantic meanings associated with abstract symbolic patterns, or conventional squiggles such as "2" or "X".

4. Logic is a mathematical relationship (structural pattern) between items in a series or array. If the logic "adds up", the result is value or meaning.

5. Structure is an abstract logical pattern that the mind perceives as the essence of an object or arrangement of objects.

6. Information is processed, organized and structured data.

7. Data is things known or assumed as facts, values, or meanings, as the basis of reasoning or calculation.

So, the article seems to be saying that "the Qualia we are aware of in the Mind are interpreted from abstract logical patterns of incoming data as meaningful information". The brain is just a machine for processing raw data into meaningful messages to the conscious Self. For example, light in the range of 620 to 750nm, has no inherent color. So, it must first be converted into a chemical form, which is then transformed into electro-magnetic forms, and ultimately processed into the Meaning (qualia) we call "Red". The Mind, both conscious and sub-conscious, is the interpreter of meaning; of significance to Self. Does that sound cranky to you?