Is sentience an illusion?

Is sentience a kind of evolutionary by-product or adaptation that doesn't really exist the way we perceive it? Are all our neurological functions merely based of a cause and effect relationship based on stimuli, the amalgam of our life experiences and the hardwiring of our brain? Would that rule out sentience?

For instance when we are faced with a choice, before we perceive ourselves as consciously making a decision our neuronal processes have already reached a conclusion, thus creating an 'illusion' of conscious decision.

So, how sentient are we really? Are we just a small step (or perhaps large) upon a chain of brain functions based on stimuli, instinct and cause and effect? Is true sentience (whatever that is) even possible?

I think that humans are still inexorably driven by cause and effect based on stimuli and the present circumstances, but I don't think that would make us non-sentient.  The dictionary defines "sentience" as "capacity for sensation or feeling".  I think it's rather clear that humans contain that trait.

The term "sentience" largely refers to the difference between humans and either computers or lower forms of life that act on little more than reflex, having no higher levels of thought or emotion.  I do think an argument could be made, though, that it could very well be the case that much less separates humans and computers than might seem to be intuitively the case.  Computers are programmed to act in a certain way based on their code base and based on the input they receive from their defined environment (e.g., keyboard and mouse).  Much in the same way, one might also say that humans are also programmed, in a way, to act based on their current state and based on the input they receive from their environment.  I would be curious to hear what clear and uncrossable chasm people feel separates humans and computers, if any.

Well illusion and sentience probably aren't the right words but I'll try to clarify myself further, with my example of making decisions and that by the time we actually perceive ourselves as making the decision our brains have already come up with a decision with out any conscious thought on out part, making any kind of conscious decision to reach that same conclusion a kind of illusion, or that we are basically just responding to stimuli according to our brains 'hardwiring' as every other organism does. In our case it might just goes something like this:

Stimuli -> response -> conscious of response seconds later

So really how 'consciously' in control are we? Is sentience worthless if we aren't really in control? Is sentience/free will or whatever you call it actually a kind of illusion? Is true sentience possible and what would constitute true sentience and for what evolutionary benefit does our illusion (if it is one) of conscious have? And to add a theistic twist to it considering the union, how can we be eternally punished for something that is really beyond our conscious control?

Sorry if I'm not explaining that great.

As for the AI thing, would it be possible to replicate the 'illusion' (again, if it is one) of conscious/self awareness/free will? I'm assuming it would be given that we can and for what purpose would we replicate that illusion? What benefit does actual conscious thought serve to an AI if it could complete all the same functions as a human even without the consciousness?

Oh, I see what you mean now. Determinism thread, GOOO! >_>

If we seriously entertain externalist, deterministic notions like yours, then we have serious problems, as both positions are either Circular, or self-refuting (in the case of externalism, both).

Externalism assumes that justifying factors are wholly outside the subject. Let's compare this to internalism with regards to a certain question "How does Mary know that a red ball is sitting in front of her?" 

Now an Internalist would give this answer: Mary knows this because she has a red ball-like sensation. 

An Externalist, by contrast, would give this response: Mary knows because the lighting is good, and her eyes are in proper working order. 

To a scientifically minded person, externalism would seem more intuitive. But if you investigate by getting at the first order questions, internalism rules the day. The externalist, unless he falls back on internalist justification, or some viciously circular scheme, cannot show that the external factors produce true beliefs. 

Also, Internalism seems to best solve the Gettier-type thought experiments (those which were supposed to undermine the notion that Knowledge=Justified True Belief). No relavent falsehood seems to be the best one. 

Now, that being said, Internalism, and all epistemology, requires the existence of a sentient self. So a denial of that would be self-defeating.  When you try to deny the existence of a sentient self, you're using Epistemology.

Hope that helps you understand why sentience exists. 

Oh, I see what you mean now. Determinism thread, GOOO! >_>

Funky_Llama

Well it definitely has a deterministic theme but I'm more interested in why apparent sentience exists, what possible benefit does it give to an organism?  Using the AI example, if it could replicate a humans functions perfectly what possible benefit does sentience have? It seems to be an enormous waste of brain power so why was it selected favourably or is it some kind of by product?

If we seriously entertain externalist, deterministic notions like yours, then we have serious problems, as both positions are either Circular, or self-refuting (in the case of externalism, both).

Externalism assumes that justifying factors are wholly outside the subject. Let's compare this to internalism with regards to a certain question "How does Mary know that a red ball is sitting in front of her?" 

Now an Internalist would give this answer: Mary knows this because she has a red ball-like sensation. 

An Externalist, by contrast, would give this response: Mary knows because the lighting is good, and her eyes are in proper working order. 

To a scientifically minded person, externalism would seem more intuitive. But if you investigate by getting at the first order questions, internalism rules the day. The externalist, unless he falls back on internalist justification, or some viciously circular scheme, cannot show that the external factors produce true beliefs. 

Also, Internalism seems to best solve the Gettier-type thought experiments (those which were supposed to undermine the notion that Knowledge=Justified True Belief). No relavent falsehood seems to be the best one. 

Now, that being said, Internalism, and all epistemology, requires the existence of a sentient self. So a denial of that would be self-defeating.  When you try to deny the existence of a sentient self, you're using Epistemology.

Hope that helps you understand why sentience exists. 

danwallacefan

Not really :P

I'm not necessarily denying sentience exists (if I'm understanding your post correctly, which I don't think I have) but that the thought processes that give us the perception of free thought/sentience/consciousness etc are just reaching predetermined conclusions that were reached seconds earlier from pure neuronal processes, hence we aren't really controlling anything, just reacting to stimuli as every other organism does, which brings up the question as to the purpose of sentience.

I think I should rename my thread. :P

Well it definitely has a deterministic theme but I'm more interested in why apparent sentience exists, what possible benefit does it give to an organism?  Using the AI example, if it could replicate a humans functions perfectly what possible benefit does sentience have? It seems to be an enormous waste of brain power so why was it selected favourably or is it some kind of by product?bean-with-bacon

Do you realize that you've just given the Evolutionary argument against naturalism? You've just shown that naturalism+evolution leads to global skepticism. So if we have global skepticism, we have to deny naturalism as well as ALL claims to knowledge. 

 Therefore, naturalism is self-refuting. 

Not really :P

I'm not necessarily denying sentience exists (if I'm understanding your post correctly, which I don't think I have) but that the thought processes that give us the perception of free thought/sentience/consciousness etc are just reaching predetermined conclusions that were reached seconds earlier from pure neuronal processes, hence we aren't really controlling anything, just reacting to stimuli as every other organism does, which brings up the question as to the purpose of sentience.

I think I should rename my thread. :P

bean with bacon

Do you realize that you've just given the Evolutionary argument against naturalism? You've just shown that naturalism+evolution leads to global skepticism. So if we have global skepticism, we have to deny naturalism as well as ALL claims to knowledge. 

 Therefore, naturalism is self-refuting. 

 danwallacefan

Could you elaborate? I don't really see how being skeptical would require the denial to all claims to knowledge. The fact that Knowledge is provisional wouldn't seem to bother a naturalist.   

[QUOTE="bean-with-bacon"]

Well it definitely has a deterministic theme but I'm more interested in why apparent sentience exists, what possible benefit does it give to an organism?  Using the AI example, if it could replicate a humans functions perfectly what possible benefit does sentience have? It seems to be an enormous waste of brain power so why was it selected favourably or is it some kind of by product?danwallacefan

Do you realize that you've just given the Evolutionary argument against naturalism? You've just shown that naturalism+evolution leads to global skepticism. So if we have global skepticism, we have to deny naturalism as well as ALL claims to knowledge. 

 Therefore, naturalism is self-refuting. 

And? I care about truth and my understanding of the world, I'm still a naturalist but I'm not only going to question things surrounding the supernatural and promote things that point to naturalism, I genuinely don't understand why sentience exists, maybe neurologists have an answer, I don't know but I'm not going to not question it just because it seems to perhaps point to the supernatural, I consider that intellectually dishonest.

But I disagree that we must deny any claims to knowledge just because we must be sceptic about everything, we can't be sure we really know anything about anything, however from my perception, which is all that matter to me as it is all I know I have, the knowledge that I possess has real world benefits and is relevant to me (according to my perception of course)

[quote="bean with bacon"]

Not really :P

I'm not necessarily denying sentience exists (if I'm understanding your post correctly, which I don't think I have) but that the thought processes that give us the perception of free thought/sentience/consciousness etc are just reaching predetermined conclusions that were reached seconds earlier from pure neuronal processes, hence we aren't really controlling anything, just reacting to stimuli as every other organism does, which brings up the question as to the purpose of sentience.

I think I should rename my thread. :P

danwallacefan

While technically I suppose sentience might be false that does not mean we cannot still gain knowledge that is relevant to us.

While technically I suppose sentience might be false that does not mean we cannot still gain knowledge that is relevant to us.

 

bean-with-bacon

But false according to what? I can gain knowledge, whether that knowledge is false or not is entirely irrelevant, according to my perceptions it is true and has real world effects. We gain knowledge through our sensory perceptions from stimuli, the thought processes and sentience are just kind of 'replaying' it (well I think that what happens, ultimately I just know jack **** about the brain and how it works so I could very wrong :P), what I want to know is if that is all sentience is then what possible benefit does it give an organism?

But false according to what? I can gain knowledge, whether that knowledge is false or not is entirely irrelevant, according to my perceptions it is true and has real world effects. We gain knowledge through our sensory perceptions from stimuli, the thought processes and sentience are just kind of 'replaying' it (well I think that what happens, ultimately I just know jack **** about the brain and how it works so I could very wrong :P), what I want to know is if that is all sentience is then what possible benefit does it give an organism?

bean-with-bacon

If you are going to define sentience as our method of interpreting the world around us, then I think the major advantage would be the enhanced ability to reason. Whether or not one is the cause or the other, reason and sentience are definitely related. Abstract thinking and advanced problem solving are both definite evolutionary benefits and are both exhibited by species that exhibit sentience or sentient tenancies.

But false according to what? I can gain knowledge, whether that knowledge is false or not is entirely irrelevant, according to my perceptions it is true and has real world effects. We gain knowledge through our sensory perceptions from stimuli, the thought processes and sentience are just kind of 'replaying' it (well I think that what happens, ultimately I just know jack **** about the brain and how it works so I could very wrong :P), what I want to know is if that is all sentience is then what possible benefit does it give an organism?

bean-with-bacon

No, that does not make any sense. Consciousness (sentience) is the thing that identifies, and reality is what consciousness identifies. You have to use this principle, this axiom, in order to make the claim that sentience is an illusion in the first place. Existence exists, A is A. Saying that sentience is an illusion is saying that A is not A. I think that you are mistaking sentience for free will.Welkabonz

Hmm. That's interesting. 

[QUOTE="Welkabonz"]No, that does not make any sense. Consciousness (sentience) is the thing that identifies, and reality is what consciousness identifies. You have to use this principle, this axiom, in order to make the claim that sentience is an illusion in the first place. Existence exists, A is A. Saying that sentience is an illusion is saying that A is not A. I think that you are mistaking sentience for free will.Lansdowne5

Hmm. That's interesting. 

Well, I see his point - the very fact that someone is capable of arguing that sentience is an illusion proves that it isn't.Funky_Llama

Yeah, it's kind of like Descartes' "I think therefore I am" - for one to be convinced that they aren't, they would first have to be, because if they weren't, they could not be convinced of anything at all.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Well, I see his point - the very fact that someone is capable of arguing that sentience is an illusion proves that it isn't.GabuEx

Yeah, it's kind of like Descartes' "I think therefore I am" - for one to be convinced that they aren't, they would first have to be, because if they weren't, they could not be convinced of anything at all.

No, that does not make any sense. Consciousness (sentience) is the thing that identifies, and reality is what consciousness identifies. You have to use this principle, this axiom, in order to make the claim that sentience is an illusion in the first place. Existence exists, A is A. Saying that sentience is an illusion is saying that A is not A. I think that you are mistaking sentience for free will.Welkabonz

I miss Gabu and domatron. :(foxhound_fox

Ah yes - the good old days  - with Danwallacefan and Lansdown5 too! 

I'm having trouble understanding what is going on.

What part of sentience is illusory?

While it may be up to debate as to whether or not what we are perceiving is illusory, surely enough the very fact that we (or, at least, I) are/am perceiving something is not something that can really be denied.

What part of sentience could be illusory? I suppose it depends on the definition one is using. The definition that is most intuitive to me in regards to "sentience" is "the ability to feel, perceive, be conscious, or to experience subjectivity".

Are you unable to feel or perceive? Are you conscious? Can you experience subjectivity?

I'm just so bamboozled at how much you are considering these most basic of questions. Think about it. What would it mean if my ability to perceive were illusory? Not what I perceive, but my ability to.

Then I would not even be able to know that my biological organism is feigning perception.

Android339

I share your view and we might likely never know since this thread was resurrected from way back when! I think the topic is covered somewhat by a book someone (I forget who - sorry) recommended on this forum called "Incognito" by David Engleman. It might shed some insight on this. It is a fascinating book in itself and discusses some of the aspects and mechanisms of consciousness.

In the book he describes an experiment by Benjamin Libert, who placed electrodes on peoples' brains and asked them to do a task in moving   their finger. They were asked to note the exact time when the urge to move their finger occurred. The results showed that people became aware of the urge to move about a quarter of a second before they moved their fingers, but activity in the brains began to rise over a second before they felt the urge to move. That is to say the brain was making decisions before the people were consciously aware of the urge.  Libert's experiments flagged the issue of the conscious mind being the last in the chain of knowledge regarding action. He suggested that consciousness might retain a final "veto" power over unconscious action - elements of which are missing with people with diseases affecting consciousness, such as Tourettes syndrome, etc. 

(Precied from From Incognito, Engleman p167)

I think we can access an objective reality through shared subjective evaluations, but those subjective interpretations may well differ.

Hi, first im sorry if anyone is disturbed with the resurrection of this thread or my terrible engrish . I posted on this forum beacuse I found that people here have deeply thought-out atheism. It might help if I told you of my way to atheism. Im highly intelligent and here in Croatia were taught all the science without any interference from religion. Even though I was raised in a christian family I always questioned my religion. When I was 12 I found many holes in what I was thought but it was not nearly enough to throw away my faith, as I attributed that to imperfections in carying the holy word. Over the years my doubts got stronger and I would think of things from 2 perspectives-with and without God. One after another my arguments for existence of God were shattered in the light of my scepticism. However, I knew I could only let of religion once I have another, more viable explanation. An Idea of complete determinism was slowly forming in my head, never resting until it had no more gaps to fill and was ready to push God out. Before I got in the world of atheism I thought all atheist beleive in  determinism but I was shocked to find out that after such a big step of throwing God away they kept some hope in free will.

I did not read any books of atheism but from your reaction, I can guess that this is not a widly spread theory.

Here is what I currently "believe":

Multiverse- 99% likely, shoots the inteligently desinged laws of nature argument through the window

Evolution- 99% likely

 Now, has anyone of you ever watched star trek? The Doctor was a highly programmed machine wich acted as a human. It hit me in the head what if humans have so specific programing that it gives away an illusion of intelligence as we define it? We have computers today and they show us the potential of microorganization- it is not,in my opinion,a too long shot to assume that microorganization is possibly responsible for our cognitive capabilities. I also dont beleive in life anymore - it is different from what we call inanimate only in level of complexity. 

 So what do I think when I say illusion of sentinence? We are made of the same stuff as everything else - matter and matter is bound by the laws of the universe. What people once thought of as soul or spirit has a material basis in our brain - it is the way our neurons are linked. So if our brain is bound by laws of pyshics then our soul is also bound by them. When our brain gets stimuli the electric signal shall follow the laws and always go where the smallest resistance is, to a preordered programed path, so you have no say in this. The signal will go on its path stimulating nerves with relevant info and we will perceive it as we made a decision when there was none to make. What we perceive is most likely only stimuli dragged through highly complex reaction system(the brain) and our perception is the printout of the interaction of the two. Thinking we have a will is the same as if a paper being printed on thought it had a say.

The selfprogramming is provided by biological coding, probably giving us some basic concepts. It would probably be usefull to think of brain in 2 parts. The programing part(subconcious) and the over time crystalized program wich is dependant on similarity to react(we  can only imagine what we see).

Well I guess it would be better to say intelligence is an illusion, as the definition of sentinence I thought of is outdated. So no one has an opinion of this? Would we be able to calculate everything reagarding a humans future behavior if we had perfect knowledge of his current state and perfect equations?

The second fall of vis vita :D 

I'm not sure that thinking of the mind as a computer is an entirely valid concept, in the same way that the Victorians thought of the mind as a finely tuned machine, or was thought of as a complex piece of electronics in the 50's. This paradigm of thought does not fully describe consciousness, sentience or intelligence.I'm also not sure that we do have a material component that some people think of as a soul or spirit.

I don't think the idea of the will is as simple as you describe and do think that people generally can have some scope for determining their fates. The idea of having "perfect knowledge" does not sound like a reasonable proposition to me. Proposing that there will be "perfect equations" to predict human creativity and behaviour seems like an over-simplistic approach to the mind because of the random, reactive and chaotic and creative nature of being.

I was thinking theoreticaly if u had absolute knowledge of humans material body and absolute knowledge of pyshics could you interpretate everything with those two? I guess I just overcomplicated the statement that humans are completely matter.

As an atheist you do not have any escape from complete materialism, dont you? And brain is very much like a computer according to the latest studies mostly called Computational-Neural theories. Why should we state that mind isnt another evolutionary product when some organs are quite complex themselves? 

I was thinking theoreticaly if u had absolute knowledge of humans material body and absolute knowledge of pyshics could you interpretate everything with those two? I guess I just overcomplicated the statement that humans are completely matter.

As an atheist you do not have any escape from complete materialism, dont you? And brain is very much like a computer according to the latest studies mostly called Computational-Neural theories. Why should we state that mind isnt another evolutionary product when some organs are quite complex themselves? 

3atronach3

Can you ever have absolute knowledge of anything? The more stuff you know, the more you realize there is to learn.

It really depends what you define "materialism" as. In a sense, creativity is an escape from materialism, for example.

Making analogies between the mind and emergent technologies is not a new thing. We can describe computers and how they work, but we can not describe the workings of the mind in the same way. I think that's because we don't have the ability (or toolset) to do that yet and prefer to stick to terms we can understand and relate to. In the same way, Victorian Deists described a watchmaker in the "precisions" used to create the universe. Today, we mostly find those notions rather ill-fitting and antiquated.

In a sense, we designed computers to facilitate tasks of the mind so it is no wonder that we used aspects of mental capacity (i.e. memory storage and processing capabilities) into them. That is not to say that computers mirror our minds, reasoning capabilities or intellect. Research into AI that seemed so theoreticcaly possible in the early 80's has hit obstacle after obstacle in trying to replicate human conciousness, or reproduce even the simplest of tasks that would be automatic for a human to do. AI thory hasn't fulfilled it's promise nearly as quickly as had been suggested.

I think the mind is evolutionarily evolved. Complexity is not external to evolution. 

Ok let go of the absolute knowledge you dont know what I mean(prob my fault, plz dont be offended).

If human mind is a computer then its the most advanced one, no wonder they cant replicate it yet. Let me try a diferent aproach, if one could replicate a human body to the last atom would it be alive and have memories equal to its blueprint?

Computers are a very good analogy imo, but they have nowhere near our processing power. 

Ok let go of the absolute knowledge you dont know what I mean(prob my fault, plz dont be offended).

If human mind is a computer then its the most advanced one, no wonder they cant replicate it yet. Let me try a diferent aproach, if one could replicate a human body to the last atom would it be alive and have memories equal to its blueprint?

Computers are a very good analogy imo, but they have nowhere near our processing power. 

3atronach3

I'm not sure I am following you - See we can replicate the most advanced computer - and we do this too: We make more and more advanced computers as well, knowing exactly how they will function. But they don't model the human brain or are able to conceive of conciousness. They are "dumb", systematic, task oriented tools. I think it rather reductive to think people are like that too.

I think you're changing tack a bit here. I don't think if you could replicate an individual they would have the same memories. What about identical twins that share the same fingerprints, as a real-world example? I don't think character or most conceptual memories have a "blueprint", although instincts might. Neural pathways adapt, change, are created and destroyed with changed "information" in the brain. We can see this from people recovering from (or affected by) brain injuries.

So where are our memories stored if not in our brain? You beleive that brain is the anchor of soul or? 

About the twins gene activation can  differ, so even they are kinda diferent. And we are only biologicaly coded how to "digest" information, so brain is a collection of logicaly digested reality. So theoraticaly even 100% same creatures would be diferent beacuse they had diferent stimuli.

So where are our memories stored if not in our brain? You beleive that brain is the anchor of soul or? 

About the twins gene activation can  differ, so even they are kinda diferent. And we are only biologicaly coded how to "digest" information, so brain is a collection of logicaly digested reality. So theoraticaly even 100% same creatures would be diferent beacuse they had diferent stimuli.

3atronach3

I have no idea what a soul is, so can't really answer you. I also have little idea about how and where our memories are stored in the brain. I know they are not stored systematically, logically, or contiguously. Perhaps the mechanisms for storage and retreival of memory are unique to each brain, where we seem to construct and personalise our memories from various fragments.

I don't agree that we are "coded" only to digest information. I disagree also about the brain being a collection of logically digested reality, since human memory has been proven to be a weak basis for sharing reality. Look at the relative importance placed on personal testimony in law court systems, where circumstantial evidence has more factual basis and greater evidential value.

I am dissapoint :?

 So when you threw away God you stoped thinking of the nature of your existence? 

I am dissapoint :?

 So when you threw away God you stoped thinking of the nature of your existence? 

3atronach3

1. I never "threw away" God.

2. I (too often) think about  the nature of existence.

3. Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed. - Alexander Pope

Im writing a book on the nature of man, I can paste it here if you want when its finished.3atronach3

You can try, although it'd better be a short book - else you may have problems pasting it.

Its goal is to try and explain man exclusively through evolution.3atronach3

Doesn't evolution do this already? Trying shouldn't be part of goals. Why are you really writing this?

I beleive its very close to the truth, but one can see such a view as pesimistic.3atronach3

I don't think it needs to be a pessimistic view. I find the ascent of humankind quite uplifting, personally.

Unfortunately there is no higher creature to care for a reason for us to exist.3atronach3

Why would we be fortunate if there were? I hope your book is as good as "Incognito", by David Engleman!

Unfortunately there is no higher creature to care for a reason for us to exist.3atronach3

Sentience is the ability to feel, to have emotions.  Nothing illusionary about that.  Even if sentience were to be an illusion, the illusion itself would be real together with the emotions that go with it, so it doesn't matter if it's an illusion yes or no since that fact doesn't take away the feelings we experience.

We all dream.  Dreams evoke emotions.  Dreams --although real-- aren't reality.  Does that make the emotions not a reality?

In fact, the question is redundant and also seems to start from the false idea that sentience means intelligence.