The axiomatic nature of consciousness

[Plasmatic]

Athena mentioned Searle. He is very close in many respects to Oism. There are hours of free video available on him on the net. I suspect that some of the examples of validating mental causation in some lectures have been influenced by him.

The difference between reduction and eliminative reduction/materialism needs to be mentioned here. The only kind of materialism Oist literature even mentiones is the eliminative kind.

[Leonid]

In a system, exhibiting emergent properties:

 

1. Is the system behaving in a way inconsistent with its nature and reality?

2. Are the parts of the system behaving in ways inconsistent with their natures and reality?

3. Is the emergent property a completely natural and necessary expression of the nature of the system?

4. In the emergent property a completely natural and necessary expression of the natures of the parts of the system and the particular combination/configuration they are in?

 

If there is no appeal to unknowable natural processes, then what is the distinction between irreducibility and reducibility? 

 

Is this more properly a statement of epistemology than one of metaphysics?

Emergent properties are not supernatural. But in the case of the living organism the basic emergent property is self-causation which implies a different kind of nature which cannot be reducible to inanimated objects driven by antecedent causes. Consider for example such a property as locomotion. We know the molecular mechanism responsible for such a property, but cannot reduce it to molecules. Only living organism as a whole can initiate the goal-orientated movement. 

[StrictlyLogical]

Leonid if I am to make any progress a good start would be specific definitive answers to my questions in the post you quoted.

[Leonid]

Leonid if I am to make any progress a good start would be specific definitive answers to my questions in the post you quoted.

1. No. The system behaves in accordance with its biological nature. 

2. The parts of biological system are inanimate objects and behave in accordance with their nature.

3. Emergent property of biological objects expresses kind of nature which is different from that of inanimate objects. 

4. Life is a natural strong emergent property of the natural system. This is a property of the system as a whole  and cannot be reduced to the properties of its parts by definition. Living system cannot express the nature of its parts because life is a process of self-initiated self-sustained goal-orientated action and therefore is driven by self-causation. Inanimate objects don't act but acted upon and are driven by an antecedent cause.  Mind is an emergent property of life. Any attempt to reduce the properties of these systems to their parts leads to the death alley of explanatory gap which puzzles philosophers of mind for decades. 

Edited January 1, 2014 by Leonid

[Leonid]

StrictluLogical "Color and texture and solidity are properties which are emergent if we consider the behavior of solitary electrons, protons, and neutrons, none of which possess these properties."

 

Color, texture, solidity  are not properties but percepts. This is how we perceive these properties. This is a phenomenon which belongs to the realm of epistemology, not metaphysics. You cannot reduce percepts to the properties. In spite the fact that perception is a  valid representation of  reality,  it is a mental phenomenon. You can only say that certain atomic structure is responsible for reflection of light waves of certain frequency and length which we perceive as a red color. 

Edited January 1, 2014 by Leonid

[A is A]

The perception of color is an extremely complex scientific issue and it is best not to bring this issue up when discussing philosophic issues.  The perceived color is not just a function of the wavelength of light reflected off a surface.  It depends upon the color receptors in our eyes; it depends upon the background and surrounding colors in a given field of view.  It depends upon the color of light striking the object.  Sometimes, it can depend upon the angle of viewing the object.  I think there is scientific evidence that no two people perceive the exact same color with respect to intensity, hue, and saturation.  

[Leonid]

The perception of color is an extremely complex scientific issue and it is best not to bring this issue up when discussing philosophic issues.  The perceived color is not just a function of the wavelength of light reflected off a surface.  It depends upon the color receptors in our eyes; it depends upon the background and surrounding colors in a given field of view.  It depends upon the color of light striking the object.  Sometimes, it can depend upon the angle of viewing the object.  I think there is scientific evidence that no two people perceive the exact same color with respect to intensity, hue, and saturation.  

There are 3 elements in perception 1. object of perception 2 media ( light waves, sound waves etc...) 3. organs of perception. Percept is a combination of all 3.

[A is A]

Not sure why my responses to Leonid are blank.  Let's try this one:

 

Not sure how this addresses my comment.  Color is not a percept by your definition since there is no object.  We may perceive a red object, but there is no object "red."  Again, as I mentioned above, the perception of a specific color is affected by many factors, not the least of which is the wavelength of the light being reflected off the surface.  

[Leonid]

Not sure why my responses to Leonid are blank.  Let's try this one:

 

Not sure how this addresses my comment.  Color is not a percept by your definition since there is no object.  We may perceive a red object, but there is no object "red."  Again, as I mentioned above, the perception of a specific color is affected by many factors, not the least of which is the wavelength of the light being reflected off the surface.  

The concept of color presupposes perception.  If one asks how atomic structure of this particular  object looks like the answer would be- it looks red.

Edited January 7, 2014 by Leonid

[Skylab72]

I had this thrown at me the other day: "Perhaps the biggest failing of Objectivism, shoehorning consciousness as axiomatic prevents any interesting questions being asked or answered about this uniquely human phenomenon."

I would respond that the statement is patently false. Objectivists tend to be endlessly curious and ask endless questions about everything. It takes no shoehorn to make consciousness axiomatic, it only takes giving up the petty arrogance that human consciousness is unique. I've watched a gorilla sign jokes in a standard sign language. I've seen chimps play pranks on zoo keepers. I see a level of complexity in cetacean behavior that assures me we are not alone in thinking. Moreover my cosmology includes a very high probability that my home galaxy contains more sentient species than my home planet contains species. I ask lots of questions about the phenomenon. We need to know about it in order to survive out past the Kuiper belt.

[A is A]

Damn.  Seems like there is a bug in the software when I respond to a post, nothing gets posted.  Here's my comment to Leonid:

 

All concepts presuppose perception, so I don't find your statement very enlightening.  One does not perceive atomic structure.  That is a scientific knowledge.  If you believe that, then why would the color of an object change when the background (surrounding colors) changes?

[Leonid]

Damn.  Seems like there is a bug in the software when I respond to a post, nothing gets posted.  Here's my comment to Leonid:

 

All concepts presuppose perception, so I don't find your statement very enlightening.  One does not perceive atomic structure.  That is a scientific knowledge.  If you believe that, then why would the color of an object change when the background (surrounding colors) changes?

The concept of color pertains specifically to perception. The perception however depends not only on the object but also on the means of perception which could vary insignificantly. If your perception doesn't provide you with a valid knowledge about object of perception, then why do you need it at all? The physical structure of the object is a such that you perceive it as red. The task of science is to explain why? 

[A is A]

 

The concept of color pertains specifically to perception. The perception however depends not only on the object but also on the means of perception which could vary insignificantly. If your perception doesn't provide you with a valid knowledge about object of perception, then why do you need it at all? The physical structure of the object is a such that you perceive it as red. The task of science is to explain why? 

 

Perhaps I'm not explaining myself clearly because you just keep repeating your answer.  Consider the example below, from Color Constancy.

 

 

 

The second card from the left seems to be a stronger shade of pink in the top picture. In fact they are the same color, but the brain changes its assumption about color due to the color cast of the surrounding photo.

 

Perception reveals that the two cards are different colors because of the surrounding colors, yet they are the exact same color with no background.  So the frequency of light reflecting off the surface does not determine the color you perceive.  Which brings me back to the point I was trying to make about this subject in Post 31: "The perception of color is an extremely complex scientific issue and it is best not to bring this issue up when discussing philosophic issues."   Making the perception of color a philosophic (epistemological) issue rather than strictly a scientific issue will mislead one down the path toward subjectivism.  

 

 

[A is A]

Here's another:  The two squares with the orange dots are actually the same shade of grey, though they appear to be different. (https://www.boundless.com/psychology/sensation-and-perception/the-basics-of-perception/perceptual-constancy/)

 

 

 

https://figures.boundless.com/20051/raw/-grey-squares-orange-brown.svg

[whYNOT]

This is familiar to photographers (particularly who have a film background, before the advent of auto white balance in digital).

The perceived colors are dependent on existing or ambient light i.e. the frequency of that light - as well as the inherent color properties of the object.

You photograph a face in open shade, and the face has a blue 'cast'. Why, because the blue sky is the dominant light source. The same blue in pictures of snow. Similarly with the yellow-orange pictures photographed by indoor lighting. All these are measurable by instruments which give a read out in degrees Kelvin, requiring appropriate color filters over the camera lens to 'correct back to normal'. White light, from the sun or a strobe flash has a color temperature around 5500 degrees K, and it alone depicts the true color of the object.

 

The brain 'compensates' for the cast to what it "should be" - but the real color, at that moment, in that context, is how the instrument or film or sensor reads it. Experienced photographers and artists get accustomed to over-riding this effect and observing the existent color cast.

 

So it has little or nothing to do with the background, or the "color cast of the surrounding photo", as quoted. 

(The above pics were shot with different filtrations, on lens or on lights).

 

The pinks (and all the other colors) were and are, in reality, different in those pictures - to the trained eye taking them, as well as in the resulting photos.  Due to the combined properties of "pink" PLUS the color of the direct light source (or sometimes, reflected source - a colored wall, say -behind the camera).

 

One could analogize that the brain has auto-white balance too...

Edited January 10, 2014 by whYNOT

[Leonid]

A is A -Perception is indeed very complex. In your example we are dealing with interaction of different light waves reflected from the different surfaces and with background light. Nevertheless each of them reflects certain physical reality of the objects and sources of light. If you illuminate a surface of object which absorbs red color with red light, you will not see anything since there is no reflection. But even the absence of perception in such a case will pertain to the structure of the object. You would be able to make certain conclusion in regard to this object. But suppose you are living in the world in which the only source of natural light is red. All objects which absorb red wave lights would be invisible. Does it mean that you will never learn about their existence? Evidently not. We have other means of perception except vision and could create artificial sources of light which is not red.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Leonid

[Leonid]

This is familiar to photographers (particularly who have a film background, before the advent of auto white balance in digital).

The perceived colors are dependent on existing or ambient light i.e. the frequency of that light - as well as the inherent color properties of the object.

You photograph a face in open shade, and the face has a blue 'cast'. Why, because the blue sky is the dominant light source. The same blue in pictures of snow. Similarly with the yellow-orange pictures photographed by indoor lighting. All these are measurable by instruments which give a read out in degrees Kelvin, requiring appropriate color filters over the camera lens to 'correct back to normal'. White light, from the sun or a strobe flash has a color temperature around 5500 degrees K, and it alone depicts the true color of the object.

 

The brain 'compensates' for the cast to what it "should be" - but the real color, at that moment, in that context, is how the instrument or film or sensor reads it. Experienced photographers and artists get accustomed to over-riding this effect and observing the existent color cast.

 

So it has little or nothing to do with the background, or the "color cast of the surrounding photo", as quoted. 

(The above pics were shot with different filtrations, on lens or on lights).

 

The pinks (and all the other colors) were and are, in reality, different in those pictures - to the trained eye taking them, as well as in the resulting photos.  Due to the combined properties of "pink" PLUS the color of the direct light source (or sometimes, reflected source - a colored wall, say -behind the camera).

 

One could analogize that the brain has auto-white balance too...

Perception is a process of active interaction between sensory input and information which has been previously stored in brain and modeled by it. In other words we have ready templates of percepts which interact with sensory input. This for example makes the process of recognition of objects very quick. But templates are not identical with sensory input and that why brain has to compensate.