View Full Version : What do you think consciousness is?
I didn't make this into a poll, because I don't want to limit your options. I want everyone to post what they believe consciousness is. There will probably be alot of debate on the different ideas, but that's what's supposed to happen (may the best theory win [:D]).
This will help in a number of threads, and all responses are appreciated.
Iacchus32
Sep9-03, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
I didn't make this into a poll, because I don't want to limit your options. I want everyone to post what they believe consciousness is. There will probably be alot of debate on the different ideas, but that's what's supposed to happen (may the best theory win [:D]).
This will help in a number of threads, and all responses are appreciated. Consciousness is what "validates" our existence. Please see my thread on Consciousness And What Constitutes Proof? (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5012)
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Consciousness is what "validates" our existence. Please see my thread on Consciousness And What Constitutes Proof? (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5012)
You have only said one of the things that consciousness does for us, you haven't defined it. Please try and define it.
Consciousness is being aware of ones environment and responding to it.
This includes plants and one celled life. We normally think of consciousness as a human trait of being intelligently aware and self aware. This is an extremely limited anthromorphic view. Human consciousnes may be the highest most complex level of consciousness we know of. It may also be simply our arrogance.
I think consciousness at any level even the simpilest and most primative is a characteristic and possibly a prerequisite of life.
Originally posted by Royce
Consciousness is being aware of ones environment and responding to it.
This includes plants and one celled life. We normally think of consciousness as a human trait of being intelligently aware and self aware. This is an extremely limited anthromorphic view. Human consciousnes may be the highest most complex level of consciousness we know of. It may also be simply our arrogance.
I think consciousness at any level even the simpilest and most primative is a characteristic and possibly a prerequisite of life.
Well put, though I think that consciousness at any level below animal life ("the simpilest and most primitive", as you put it) is pretty much just automatic reaction to external stimulus. And, of course, even some animals (like the sponge and the jellyfish) just "react" with no ability toward proaction or self-consciousness.
reaction implies awareness even at a basic level and awareness implies consciousness in my opinion.
Originally posted by Royce
reaction implies awareness even at a basic level and awareness implies consciousness in my opinion.
Let's discuss that a little. Do I need to be "aware" of having been stung before I scream?
Iacchus32
Sep9-03, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
You have only said one of the things that consciousness does for us, you haven't defined it. Please try and define it. It's merely the awareness of the fact that we exist, and a means by which to know the truth -- of everything! That's the only way I know how to define it, because my consciousness "is me."
Will also concede to what Royce was saying above as well. [;)]
Originally posted by Mentat
Let's discuss that a little. Do I need to be "aware" of having been stung before I scream?Yes, in most instances I would think?
No, Mentat, you don't. (In humans, the part of you that jerks your hand away isn't even controlled by your brain. Did you know that?) In fact, reaction does not dictate awareness. I'm sorry. Plants are not conscious. If you pour acid on a rock and watch the acid react to the rock, the acid isn't conscious.
Consciousness represents an awareness of one's surroundings often shown by reacting to stimuli that is no longer present. In other words, when a dog buries a bone and then later goes to dig it up, he is conscious of the fact that he lives in a world where there is a bone under the ground that he put there.
No, memory isn't the only requirement or even a requirement at all, but I was trying to illustrate a point. Consciousness implies the ability to think instead of simply reacting.
Originally posted by Sunfist
No, Mentat, you don't. (In humans, the part of you that jerks your hand away isn't even controlled by your brain. Did you know that?) In fact, reaction does not dictate awareness. I'm sorry. Plants are not conscious. If you pour acid on a rock and watch the acid react to the rock, the acid isn't conscious.
This is the point I was trying to make (well put, btw). Most things that react are considered alive, but they are certainly not conscious. Consciousness is an evolved (highly complex) version of these same reactions, however, and that's why I mostly agree with what Royce was saying.
Consciousness represents an awareness of one's surroundings often shown by reacting to stimuli that is no longer present. In other words, when a dog buries a bone and then later goes to dig it up, he is conscious of the fact that he lives in a world where there is a bone under the ground that he put there.
No, memory isn't the only requirement or even a requirement at all, but I was trying to illustrate a point. Consciousness implies the ability to think instead of simply reacting.
I like your example, and I agree with everything you've said except for where you imply that memory might not be required at all. According to pretty much every theory of consciousness (and deducable from your own example), memory does indeed play a role(and a key role, at that) in conscious activity.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, in most instances I would think?
I disagree. It has been known for quite some time that sudden reactions, such as responding to being stung, don't even take place in the brain, but in the spinal cord (they are only later processed in the brain). The brain is the center of consciousness, so I don't think that someone needs to be aware of having been stung in order to react.
I also think that this very point is what Sunfist was trying to explain: Reaction and awareness are two different things (the latter may be a highly evolved form of the first, but that's another matter), and confusing the two can lead to misunderstandings of consciousness.
Originally posted by Mentat
I like your example, and I agree with everything you've said except for where you imply that memory might not be required at all. According to pretty much every theory of consciousness (and deducable from your own example), memory does indeed play a role(and a key role, at that) in conscious activity.
Well, I was just sort of covering my own back. I do think that memory is imporant, just not EVERY type of memory. In one of my psychology classes we studied a man who was incapable of making memories at all and had forgotten everything from his past. When he woke up every morning, he thought he had become concious for the first time. Certainly this man is concious though.
However, note that he had other types of memory. He knew the English language. He could read, conduct music, etc.
conciousness is simply a state of being. Even reactionary is conciousness. THe difference between a plant's reactionary state and our state, is call sentience.
Originally posted by Sunfist
Well, I was just sort of covering my own back. I do think that memory is imporant, just not EVERY type of memory. In one of my psychology classes we studied a man who was incapable of making memories at all and had forgotten everything from his past. When he woke up every morning, he thought he had become concious for the first time. Certainly this man is concious though.
However, note that he had other types of memory. He knew the English language. He could read, conduct music, etc.
So he had some long-term, and very-short-term, but not the usual short-term that helps us recall the previous day?
Originally posted by Zantra
conciousness is simply a state of being. Even reactionary is conciousness. THe difference between a plant's reactionary state and our state, is call sentience.
I partially agree. The distinction between our higher consciousness, and lower forms of consciousness is sentience. However, purely reactionary actions cannot be (IMO) considered conscious, since the plant (for example) was never aware of the fact that anything happened, it just reacted.
Iacchus32
Sep9-03, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
I disagree. It has been known for quite some time that sudden reactions, such as responding to being stung, don't even take place in the brain, but in the spinal cord (they are only later processed in the brain). The brain is the center of consciousness, so I don't think that someone needs to be aware of having been stung in order to react. And yet I think consciousness stems from the fact that we have the ability to react at all. Consciousness is everything about who we are, even down to the cellular level.
I also think that this very point is what Sunfist was trying to explain: Reaction and awareness are two different things (the latter may be a highly evolved form of the first, but that's another matter), and confusing the two can lead to misunderstandings of consciousness. No, but you did ask what consciousness was. And, by claiming that it exists on a cellular level, i.e., that it exists in accord with our reactions as well, is an attempt to define it. [;)]
Could it be that reaction is the first level of consciousness and awareness a higher level and finally self awareness? as you have said, animals are aware and conscious. At what level does consciousness disappear and reaction takes over.
Are you aware that a flat worm can be taught or trained and that if cut longitudenally it will regenerate and both will remember what it was originally taught? Is this consciousness by your definitions; i.e. awareness reaction and memory? So a flat worm is conscious.
Are you aware that a tree can be trained to grow a certain way and retains that pattern of growth for years? Is that consciousness? How do you know that plants aren't conscious or is that just an assumption on your part?
Ever grow tomatoes? When they reach a certain level of growth and someone walks amoung them and brushes against their vines they give off an unpleasent odor. When one plant does this they all do it.
Once they become used to someone coming in and weeding and pruning them the no longer give off that odor and even when we pick the fruit they still don't give off that oder. It has even happened that I have talked to the plants, as crazy as that sounds and they quit giving off that odor. I have no idea why and thought it funny strange or just a coincidence; but it happen a number of times.
Anyone who really loves plants and grows plants out of passion can tell you that they respond to us talking and music as well as other things. Studies have been made that show that they have different prefferences for different typs of music. Is this consciousness?
"What is consciousness?"
How do we answer such a question? The same way we answer any question in the form "what is X". And there are only two ways to answer those types of questions:
a) With a tautology. Example: "what is velocity?" - "velocity is change in position with time". Except as exercises in logic, tautological answers are meaningless, in the sense that they do not tell you anything you don't already know.
b) With a reference to a larger, less specific category. Example: "what is a cat?" - "a cat is a feline", "a cat is a mammal", "a cat is an animal", ..., "a cat is a thing". The less specific the category referenced in the answer, the less meaningful it becomes. "Cats are felines" is certainly more meaningful than "cats are things", but still there are far more things that are true about cats than things that are true about felines, so the answer may not be satisfying.
I can't think of any other way to answer a "what is..." question. And if there is no other way, that means those questions don't have meaningful answers that are true! If you start with a "type b" kind of answer, the more you refine it so as to make it more true while remaining meaningful, the more it will look like a tautology. If you start with a "type a" answer, the more you try and generalize to make it more meaningful, the less true it becomes. Just look at the answers on this thread so far!
Obviously the point of answering a "what is X" question can't possibly have anything to do with knowing meaningful truths about X, since a meaningful, true, and non-tautological definition of X simply does not exist. So why do we ask?
And therein lies the answer. In order to know the best answer, you have to understand why you are asking a question that has no answer. If you're interested in controlling the object of your question, then you must seek for a "type b" answer. That is what scientists do; they come up with false answers which nevertheless give them some power over the objects they study. On the other hand, if you're interested in the truth, you must necessarily find a "type a" answer. Tautologies are useless, but they do give us a sense of intellectual accomplishment.
Here's what I think about consciousness:
type a: consciousness is our ability to obtain knowledge about anything including ourselves
type b: consciousness is a self-referent language
Have fun-
Originally posted by Mentat
I partially agree. The distinction between our higher consciousness, and lower forms of consciousness is sentience. However, purely reactionary actions cannot be (IMO) considered conscious, since the plant (for example) was never aware of the fact that anything happened, it just reacted.
Right, that's what I was saying- I just didn't put it very clearly. Our state is sentience- the state of a plant is not sentience, but is reactionary
Iacchus32
Sep9-03, 02:05 PM
Consciousness is our ability to wake up and smell the roses. [;)]
human consciousness to me is a growth process of one's self that incorporates the most objective perspective possible and is able to continue this perspective in all she or he does in life...this opinion of it though is still something i am trying to define for myself...
Are we discussing consciousness, sentience, human consciousness, self awareness or what? Do we automatically assume that only humans are conscious? If so, why?
Iacchus32
Sep9-03, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Royce
Are we discussing consciousness, sentience, human consciousness, self awareness or what? Do we automatically assume that only humans are conscious? If so, why? Perhaps we can say consciousness is "the medium" of "knowing" in general?
Perhaps. Perhaps we can say consciousness is the medium for being aware, of knowing and responding to changes in immediate environment.
No! I am not going to give up or in!!![!:)] [s(] [;)]
hypnagogue
Sep9-03, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
So he had some long-term, and very-short-term, but not the usual short-term that helps us recall the previous day?
If I may step in here for an instant, I saw something on Discovery about an analogous case, don't know if it was the same guy though. In any case, he retained his long term memory and his capacity to generate short term memory; what was lost was his ability to ultimately convert those short term memories into long term ones.
As for consciousness. I define consciousness simply as the capacity for and exercise of experiential awareness. It is useful here to refer to Thomas Nagel's description of consciousness: something is conscious if it is experientially 'like' something to be that creature. Thus, we can meaningfully ask 'what is it like to be a bat?', understanding that the bat probably has an experiential awareness that is very different from our own. But the question 'what is it like to be a rock?' is probably meaningless, since being a rock probably entails an absolute lack of any kind of experiential awareness.
Note that this definition is ultimately a subjective one. Objective cues may give us clues as to the existence and nature of consciousness in other beings, but the only way to really grasp that consciousness is to be that being itself.
Objective cues are not only inadequate in capturing what we mean by consciousness, but they can also be downright misleading. For instance, people with the condition called blindsight can give you meaningful information about a visual scene without being aware of it. These people are experientially blind in certain portions of their visual field, but if you hold an ace of spades in their blinded field of vision, they can tell you that it is an ace of spades, much to their own befuddlement. (The explanation for this condition is that low level visual processing in the 'blind' areas remain intact; what is damaged is further, higher levels of visual processing, which presumably go on to transform the low level information into a conscious percept in the visual field.) Thus, people with blind sight can exhibit intelligent reactionary behavior to their environment without the attendent experiential awareness of that environment. The lesson is simply that just because it acts conscious don't mean it actually is conscious!
The Grimmus
Sep9-03, 08:27 PM
i think it is just made up, well not really made up but really just our complex thoughts coming to gether nothing specaila about it
Originally posted by Zantra
conciousness is simply a state of being. Even reactionary is conciousness. THe difference between a plant's reactionary state and our state, is call sentience.
He had no memories at all and no ability to create them. He could start singing a song and not remember the beginning by the time he got to the end. He kept a journal and every day he woke up and wrote the same thing, "Today I woke up for the first time in my life. Someone has faked a journal trying to make it look like I woke up yesterday, and the day before that, but it's not true." and he would scratch out the old entries.
Fliption
Sep10-03, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by Sunfist
He had no memories at all and no ability to create them. He could start singing a song and not remember the beginning by the time he got to the end. He kept a journal and every day he woke up and wrote the same thing, "Today I woke up for the first time in my life. Someone has faked a journal trying to make it look like I woke up yesterday, and the day before that, but it's not true." and he would scratch out the old entries.
How does he remember why he is writing in a journal to begin with? Why would he choose that as his very first act of life?
Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet I think consciousness stems from the fact that we have the ability to react at all. Consciousness is everything about who we are, even down to the cellular level.
What makes you say that? Also (more importantly, inspite of my having asked it so many times...) what, then, is a brain for?
No, but you did ask what consciousness was. And, by claiming that it exists on a cellular level, i.e., that it exists in accord with our reactions as well, is an attempt to define it. [;)]
And your attempt is worth as much merit as anyone elses. But you wont see me just aquiescing to someone's attempt (no matter how meritable) if I disagree with the idea [:))].
Originally posted by Kerrie
human consciousness to me is a growth process of one's self that incorporates the most objective perspective possible and is able to continue this perspective in all she or he does in life...this opinion of it though is still something i am trying to define for myself...
I like this idea, but approve specifically of this one point: You seperate the self from the consciousness. You make consciousness something that happens to the self, as opposed to being all that "self" entails. I think that's a distinction that isn't always made, but should be.
Originally posted by Royce
Are we discussing consciousness, sentience, human consciousness, self awareness or what? Do we automatically assume that only humans are conscious? If so, why?
I don't automatically assume anything, but it appears that some who have posted have assumed exactly that. I didn't specify in my first post, because I wanted to see how many people's posts would have that implication. It doesn't surprise me much that you were the one who noticed and mentioned it [:)].
Originally posted by hypnagogue
As for consciousness. I define consciousness simply as the capacity for and exercise of experiential awareness. It is useful here to refer to Thomas Nagel's description of consciousness: something is conscious if it is experientially 'like' something to be that creature. Thus, we can meaningfully ask 'what is it like to be a bat?', understanding that the bat probably has an experiential awareness that is very different from our own. But the question 'what is it like to be a rock?' is probably meaningless, since being a rock probably entails an absolute lack of any kind of experiential awareness.
A worthy attempt. However, can you ever really know that it's like anything to something else? This is just the philosophical notion of "zombies" again, which I find rather ridiculous myself, but it does deserve some consideration (hopefully RageSk8 and Psychodilerium haven't completely abandoned the threads yet).
Note that this definition is ultimately a subjective one. Objective cues may give us clues as to the existence and nature of consciousness in other beings, but the only way to really grasp that consciousness is to be that being itself.
Objective cues are not only inadequate in capturing what we mean by consciousness, but they can also be downright misleading. For instance, people with the condition called blindsight can give you meaningful information about a visual scene without being aware of it. These people are experientially blind in certain portions of their visual field, but if you hold an ace of spades in their blinded field of vision, they can tell you that it is an ace of spades, much to their own befuddlement. (The explanation for this condition is that low level visual processing in the 'blind' areas remain intact; what is damaged is further, higher levels of visual processing, which presumably go on to transform the low level information into a conscious percept in the visual field.) Thus, people with blind sight can exhibit intelligent reactionary behavior to their environment without the attendent experiential awareness of that environment. The lesson is simply that just because it acts conscious don't mean it actually is conscious!
Ah, very good. You came to exactly the point that I was talking about (above). Yes, you are completely correct that we can never really know that anyone is conscious (except ourselves, of course, which is what Descartes said was "the only thing [he] could ever be sure of").
pelastration
Sep11-03, 09:45 PM
Consciousness is to me a higher level of self-organization in a conscious actor who collects 'resonant information' from senses and from previously stored information (memory, experience, priorities, etc.) and evaluated them in past, present and future reference frames in such a way that the conscious actor can "choose" from different alternatives or possibilities the next step(s) to be taken to reach the individual goal(s) in his present and future development and project them interactive to the development of other actors, to a collectivity or to his 'real' or abstract surrounding(s).
Some extra remarks:
1. The individual layering system is related to the available individual observation system(s), thus the senses. The participant evaluates his surrounding and is thus "aware" of his position in the surrounding.
The observations systems are non-intellectual ( parasympathetic nerve system or vegetative ns) such as: I NEED FOOD!!! (thus reactive). This can be the type of awareness animals have (if we presume they have no self-awareness).
Awareness is thus a more stimulus - response feed-back system in which 'priority- thresholds' are embedded by a Darwin-type of survival elimination.
2. Self-awareness (Consciousness) is - IMO - related to the possibility to make choices and evaluations which go above the instincts (= evolutionary programmed awareness), and the freedom to say 'NO', and to say 'MAYBE', 'IF', ... etc. That is a ability to pre-view 'virtual results' and evaluate them. But the perception may be culturally and neuron-linguistic influenced.
It has to do with the possibility to predict /preview/ calculate steps in the time frame that is not related to the immediate 'Now-Situation'. Looking to the future and adapt behavior in view of a future outcome. Thus: I can influence MY future in relation to my surrounding(s). I.e. in a short time frame: a chess game, short/mid term: writing a complex software program, mid/long: buy real-estate to build and exploit a shopping-mall, etc.
It also has to do with the ability to connote non-physical values to physical events (For example in Art : a painting of Chagall, letters to poems, music ) and in auto-created or accepted reality (humor, games, absurdity, ... and a transcendental reality).
3. The Relativity of the Observer and signification. Depending from his position in the matter/spiritual level the observer's/participant"s surrounding (his world of reality) contains other parameters which seems to be more, less or not at all important (resonate). This gives individual overview (or experience of existence) based on past and actual information. If you have no overview the surrounding becomes paradoxical.
Example: A sheep, milk, skin, hair, and ....
The sheep is the isolated unity in our 3D world of animals. (knowledge level)
But "MY" sheep is called Bonny = specific unity in my garden. (personal daily level)
The sheep has a skin, if we transform it, it becomes LEATHER. We can make shoes of it.
The sheep has hair, if we transform it, it becomes WOOL.
For the observing farmer the sheep has another signification then for the observing manufacture of shoes. Without the existence of sheep the shoe manufacturer could not make sheep-shoes, but probably he is not interested at all how sheep sleep.
So the manufacture and the farmer are each conscious about a number of possibility a sheep and it's related sub-elements have in their world. But the sheep has a lower level of consciousness. When it sees the (fancy sheep-leather made) shoes of the farmer it will have no degree of association that those shoes might made out of sheep leather. The sheep just wants food, water, sex, housing to protect itself against the rain, sun and ... the big bad wolf. If we say that the sheep has no consciousness at all we may ask what makes the 'social behavior inside a sheep group. What makes the hierarchy ? What makes some to 'rule' and others to obey or be submissive? Just force, a fight? Is there 'acceptance' involve and 'learning'?. And does the sheep dog learns the signals of his boss? If the master dies does the dog mourns?
phoenixthoth
Sep11-03, 10:19 PM
to me, consciousness is our vehicle for perceiving, processing, and, finally, understanding reality which is principally comprised of three things: the self, the physical universe and time (including other beings), and God.
may your journey be graceful,
phoenix
Dark Wing
Sep13-03, 04:18 AM
Well, being an identity theorist, (and a huge Searle fan at that) I have to say I like Searle’s definition of consciousness
"Consciousness consists of inner, qualitative, subjective states and processes of sentience or awareness. Consciousness, so defined, begins when we wake in the morning from a dreamless sleep - and continues until we fall asleep again, die, go into a coma or otherwise become unconscious.... Dreams on this definition are a form of consciousness... States about other mental states; so according to this definition, a pain would not be a conscious state, but worrying about a pain would be a conscious state" (Searle, 'Consciousness' 1999)
It seems we are only conscious in virtue of the fact that we seem to interact with something. Once you concede that it is a biological phenomenon like any other then it can be investigated neurobiological. Subjective ontology need not stop us from having an epistemic ally objective science of consciousness (Searle again) :o)
hypnagogue
Sep13-03, 04:24 AM
Searle is the man. No question.
phoenixthoth
Sep13-03, 04:34 AM
i don't know about his books, but, in person, searle uses alcohol a lot in his metaphors.
i'm fascinated by his chinese room argument. hasn't got me convinced that there's an inner being within me that doesn't UNDERSTAND what's happening at all kinda like a computer (or maybe that's what he's getting at!). but if it looks like, tastes like, feels like i really do understand, then who cares?
do you think consciousness can be entirely understood through biology and neurochemistry and electrical impulses? to me, that is conceivable but a long way away. i highly suspect that the soul has something to do with consciousness but science isn't even trying to examine the soul as far as i can tell except perhaps superfically through psychology.
you spoke of qualitative. here, searle opened a can of worms. how do you define the word quality (or beauty)?
cheers,
phoenix
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
you spoke of qualitative. here, searle opened a can of worms. how do you define the word quality (or beauty)?
S/he's got a point. What does it mean to be "qualitative"?
do you think consciousness can be entirely understood through biology and
neurochemistry and electrical impulses
No, consciousness is non-physical, whereas the sciences are physical.
hypnagogue
Sep13-03, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
S/he's got a point. What does it mean to be "qualitative"?
A phenomenon is qualitative if it is a percept of consciousness. Thus, everything you are aware of is qualitative in nature. Again: if it is 'like something' to experience a phenomenon, that experience is qualitative.
Dark Wing
Sep14-03, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by hypnagogue
Searle is the man. No question.
Absolutely. glad to see the world is not made entirely of Dennett fans.[:D]
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
I’m fascinated by his Chinese room argument. hasn't got me convinced that there's an inner being within me that doesn't UNDERSTAND what's happening at all kinda like a computer (or maybe that's what he's getting at!). but if it looks like, tastes like, feels like i really do understand, then who cares?
you can go 2 ways with the Chinese room argument. you can say that a human is only a bunch of Syntactical symbol relations, and therefore no mind, or you can say that that is what a computer is, but it seems that we have semantics, it seems as though we can attribute meaning, so there is something about our brains that makes this possible, not found in a computer.
I believe that Searle is arguing for the latter. He does concede that if you made a computer that functioned like a brain, (as in looked like and was constructed incredibly similar to) then there is a good chance that consciousness would follow. It seems to me that this is what Dennett is trying to do with his "Cog" project, with out actually saying that he is (of course Dennett would never concede to Searle). (Dennett is, with a team of other AI researchers and robotics experts, making a life size robot that looks and functions like us. its brain, as far as i can read it being created with physical similarity to our own, and will be asked to teach itself language, social interaction, and should show emotion etc.) Searle, as far as i could see would have no problem allowing this machine consciousness, as it is physically similar to ourselves, and that is the important thing.
I agree that is it seems you do understand things etc, then if really you don’t then who cares. But the thing is you do seem to understand. if you were a bunch of syntactical relations, there would be no you to do the seeming.
do you think consciousness can be entirely understood through biology and neurochemistry and electrical impulses? to me, that is conceivable but a long way away. i highly suspect that the soul has something to do with consciousness but science isn't even trying to examine the soul as far as i can tell except perhaps superficially through psychology.
I believe that consciousness is a phenomenon that exists in virtue of our brains. there is nothing outside the brain, this is a strict materialistic view. a "mind state" as it were IS a brain state. I could even concede one step further and agree with Paul Churchland in his Elimitive Materialism approach - that all there is brain states; nothing over and above that. yes, all of this is a long way away, and brings in interesting questions about what relation there should be between the studies of the mental (higher level social/ cognitive psychology) and the physical (neuroscience). in my opinion, the studies are very far off converging as they stand, but are a continuation of the same line. in order to find a causal relationship between them: either mind influencing matter, implying a 'soul' controlling the physical; or matter influencing mind (brain state causing the rise of a mind state) or having the two just be the same thing described on a different level... much more research needs to be done in both areas until the bridge between the disciplines can give us any real information. all we can do now is speculate on the knowledge we have on what the mind seems to do and what we know about the brain, and see if we can hypothesize a link. therefore, in reality, the fields could be said to be in Autonomy at the moment: about the same thing, researching it on different levels.
as far as what psychology is studying, it doesn’t really have to have anything to do with a soul. Since i believe that the mind is simply a result of a functioning brain, and it seems that the mind aspect is easily mislead and will form connections between stimuli that aren’t there, (i.e., attributing an environmental stimulus as a cause when it is in fact a physical one) studying the mind will not actually give us much information. we know the mind misconceives things. we can look at the brain at a neuron level to find out why once we know a bit more about it. of course, all of this is a long way off. Maybe the study of psychiatry sees this when they deal with their patients mind problems, talking them through and helping them deal with the false connections they have made in their world, while prescribing certain drugs to help rebalance the brain, where the actual cause of their problem is.
as far as a soul having something to do with consciousness, i guess it all depends on what your definition of "soul" is. if you take it to be a God given non-material substance that is our mind, then i would have to disagree with you entirely. If you take it to mean the fact that you are alive and breathing, then i agree with you. brain function creates consciousness.
But an interesting question to raise here would be... could you have different levels of consciousness? i give consciousness to all animals that have a brain. they may not be "as conscious" or "as aware" as we are, have a personal identity, just not one as strong as the one we seem to have (maybe the stresses of living in the wild, the need to spend most days avoiding death staying safe and gathering food stops them from having time or energy to develop a 'character' as such, only animals with the time to via capture or dominance can do this. They all might have the capacity...) (this is just a random, not really thought through idea, any comment on this is encouraged)
I think hypnagogue answered the Qualitative question quite well (being a fellow Searle fan, i am not at all surprised)
[;)]
Originally posted by Turtle
No, consciousness is non-physical, whereas the sciences are physical.
That first statement (that consciousness is non-physical) is not only unproven, but logically impossible, AFAIC. You explain to me, Turtle, how a non-physical mind could communicate with a physical brain. They would (logically) need an intermediary, and the intermediary would have to neither be physical nor non-physical (logically impossible for the obvious reason that something is either physical or it is not).
Originally posted by Mentat
That first statement (that consciousness is non-physical) is not only unproven, but logically impossible, AFAIC. You explain to me, Turtle, how a non-physical mind could communicate with a physical brain. They would (logically) need an intermediary, and the intermediary would have to neither be physical nor non-physical (logically impossible for the obvious reason that something is either physical or it is not).
A possible anology would be the brain is the hardware, the ciruits of the computer and the mind is the software, programing of the computer. One without the other is useless and nonfunctional. Together they are capable of more than the sum of there parts.
Our mind/brain communicates with our body constantly and visa versa.
Our subjective thoughts, intents and purpose cause our phsical bodies to act all of the time. This is so obvious and so commonplace that it is overlooked and ignored, even denied much of the time. Such denial proves its contradiction to be true. This is a pardox that most can't eccept.
"As a pure materialist I deny that anything immaterial exists." Just look at all of the contradiction contained in that simple statement;
"pure materialist" is a subjective concept, "I" is a subjective concept of personal existance and self awareness, "deny" is a statement of belief which is subjective,"anything is a collective concept of all things that exist, "immaterial" if we have a word to discribe something then that something is a least a subjective thought, idea, or belief, i.e. and thus exists if only in the brain/mind, exists probably the most subjective concept of all.
Words are symbols of persons, places, things, actions etc. Symbols to not have physical existence yet are universally accepted as having meaning and conveying thought. If there is a word for it then it exists in our minds which is our reality. If there is no word for it then it does not exist in our minds or our reality. How could it?
Originally posted by Royce
A possible anology would be the brain is the hardware, the ciruits of the computer and the mind is the software, programing of the computer. One without the other is useless and nonfunctional. Together they are capable of more than the sum of there parts.
Our mind/brain communicates with our body constantly and visa versa.
Our subjective thoughts, intents and purpose cause our phsical bodies to act all of the time. This is so obvious and so commonplace that it is overlooked and ignored, even denied much of the time. Such denial proves its contradiction to be true. This is a pardox that most can't eccept.
Did you mean "can't escape"?
Anyway, I agree that the analogy of the brain as hardware is a good one, but what you must realize is that, without physical stimulus that works on binary codes, the computer would still do nothing. IOW, the C.D. (for example) doesn't contain "information", just a representation of binary code in the tiny "pits" that the computer's "eye" ("eye" and "pit" are (obviously) physical things, btw) reads. There is nothing non-physical to account for here, is there?
So, you cannot add some "non-physical" property to the computer, because there is none to be found (which is why materialist philosophers of the mind like it so much).
"As a pure materialist I deny that anything immaterial exists." Just look at all of the contradiction contained in that simple statement;
I shall now debunk all of these supposed contradictions:
"pure materialist" is a subjective concept...
Pure materialist is a choice of belief. Belief is explanable by purely physical means, as I will show later in this post...
..."I" is a subjective concept of personal existance and self awareness
I have already shown how self-awareness can occur without any non-physical components on another thread, I will post a link if you don't alread know which posts I'm referring to...
"deny" is a statement of belief which is subjective,
Alright, now I'll explain belief. When some physical stimulus (such as the photons leaving this computer screen right now) the brain imprints the stimulus as memory, and then specific portions of the brain (the "patter-recognition" portions) reproduce the same physical stimulation, when presented with similar circumstance. Belief is just that same process, only one that the brain's "patter-recognizers" found recognized as fitting that which pleeased (brought beneficial results) the person in the past.
"anything is a collective concept of all things that exist
Sure it is, but concepts are information, and information is a *process of the brain*.
"immaterial" if we have a word to discribe something then that something is a least a subjective thought, idea, or belief, i.e. and thus exists if only in the brain/mind, exists probably the most subjective concept of all.
Not true, the fact that I have a word, doesn't mean I have a concept to fit it. I have the word "nothing", but there is no concept (outside of the purely semantic (semantics also being a physical process of the pattern-recognizers in the portions of the brain that deal with speech)) to fit that term.
Words are symbols of persons, places, things, actions etc. Symbols to not have physical existence yet are universally accepted as having meaning and conveying thought.
Also wrong. Symbols do have physical existence. If you disagree, try to incite me to think about something without using a symbol.
If there is a word for it then it exists in our minds which is our reality. If there is no word for it then it does not exist in our minds or our reality. How could it?
This is all well and good, but reverse your sentences now, and see that the inverses do not need to be true. If there is an "it" for the word, then "it" (obviously) exists.
What I mean is that not all words have "its" to go along with them (they could just be words, which serve no function other than (perhaps) as short-cuts toward concepts that do exist (again, the "nothing" illustration applies, since many Theoretical Physicists use this word as a short-cut to saying "No matter, no energy, no space, and no time")), just as not all "its" have words with which to make reference to them.
As I was writing my post I could hear in my mind everyone of you objections and counter arguments. Within your paradigm they are all valid; however, you continue to use subjective terms like concept, words, meaning, theory etc. All of these terms are subjective and not physical, not material. All words are symbols used to conveys thoughts. All symbols are subjective and reach their symbolic meaning only within our minds.
We are simply arguing the merits of objectivity vs subjectivity again in this thread instead of the others. I repectfully refuse to beat this dead horse any more, any where.
Consciousness is abit loaded concept, and we too easily drift off to assume to it human properties.
There is definitely a subtle boundary between fully automata and self-awareness. Can we define it precisely? I bet no. So we gotta accept that there exist different levels of conciousness, including some that we are reluctant to call as such. Plants by me are conscious. Selfaware? not sure. Thinking? I guess not.
Consciousness is not automatically meaning selfawareness. And I fancy attributing consciousness to even lifeless objects.
from dictionary.com I like the openness to options:
2. A sense of one's personal or collective identity.
Reading this, we tend to assume human properties. But, every entity in this universe has identity. Thats the very essence of being entity. It is expressed through interaction, there is no other way. Interaction produces form. Sense of one's identity is basically sense of remaining unchanged, maintaining properties that constitute identity. This is something every single entity we have name for and that exists, has. Its not selfawareness, but its kind of sensation of oneness, being separate from rest of environment.
Every entity that has capacity to sustain its identity through time and interactions, has some kind of internal complexity that resists being teared apart. Such entity is a system, whether environment produced or selfsustained, information contained in it, reactions to environment, produces shape that tends to survive. This is equally true for as complex objects as human body and as basic things as electron.
I'm well aware that this is far-fetched and hardly acceptable view, but it comes from desire to distinguish between selfawareness, that implies thinking, and different levels of conciousness that goes down to automata and beyond.
Reactions of an entity, automatic or selfaware - no difference, are source of conciousness - selfpreservation. This implies some constellation of more basic ingredients that have some kind of complexity relationships that helps to react to environment in such a manner as to increase probability to survive interaction rather than dissovle. In this sense, atom is a complex quantum system with conciousness of level automata. Bacteria is complex system of molecules with conciousness level of automata. More basic systems form more complex systems with different kinds of conciousness.
Doesn't mean we share conciousness with our atoms, doesn't imply that every concious entity have any sense of "I", but still places "automatic reaction to external stimulus" into concious category. Self-awareness seems to require self-interaction, producing internal stimulus and reacting to it. Thats about the only way to be able to distinguish oneself's actions from those of environment. Systems that have no capacity to produce internal stimulus are thus unable to gain selfawareness.
hope you find this interesting.
Originally posted by Royce
As I was writing my post I could hear in my mind everyone of you objections and counter arguments. Within your paradigm they are all valid; however, you continue to use subjective terms like concept, words, meaning, theory etc. All of these terms are subjective and not physical, not material. All words are symbols used to conveys thoughts. All symbols are subjective and reach their symbolic meaning only within our minds.
We are simply arguing the merits of objectivity vs subjectivity again in this thread instead of the others. I repectfully refuse to beat this dead horse any more, any where.
Whatever you say. But, know this, I stand victorious (for the time being), since you did not counter me at all, but instead dodged, by insisting that I was using the same terms as you. What difference does it make, if I use those terms? I've used the terms "pull" and "force" to describe gravity, when speaking to the layperson, but that doesn't mean that there is actually a "force" of gravitation (and Relativity dictates that there certainly isn't). I'm just speaking in terms that will be understood.
My 2 cents:
I think that consciousness is a highly misterious and little understood phenomenon. It's highly remarkable that consciousness only take place in an organ called brain, that after all, is nothing more that a electric circuit made of dendrites and axons. What's so peculiar with the brain?. Should we expect that a homemade electronic circuit with its capacitors and coils have consciousness?. I don't think so. Then, what's the brain?
Analizing consciousness I ask to myself: Has consciousness mass? My answer is no. Has consciousness electric charge? No
My eccentric theory is that conscieousness is some kind of field that permeate the universe. Human beings, in its evolutionary way, have in the course of years learned to tune to this field, developing an organ to the tuning, called brain. It's a process of evolution, like for example, some arctic species that have acquired a white color of skin like a camouflage
Whatever is conscieusness, is able to introduce in our brains an guide our lives. Perhaps consciousness is using us like puppets to achieve some unknown and obscure objective
jammieg
Sep24-03, 02:12 AM
I choose to think of it as whatever one is focused on at the moment.
Originally posted by jammieg
I choose to think of it as whatever one is focused on at the moment.
focused and moment is a universe in its self,it seems,sometimes.
perhaps each human consciousness is a universe.
consider a fingerprint,we all have them,yet all are different.
we all mostly see the same things in our world,yet each human reality is different.
I have often been told that,I was in my own little world.
when you think about it, when you are focused on a moment,you really are in a different universe.
Well, now that we've discussed what consciousness is, my question to all of you is: How is consciousness?
IOW, consciousness (according to most of the members who replied) is a certain level of awareness. So, how is this level of awareness acheived? Is a brain necessary? If so, why?
How can you recognise consciousness in something?
How can Royce tell that Mentat has consciousness (is conscious)?
How can pelatration tell that the Sun doesn't have consciousness?
Interesting questions, Nereid.
BTW, I didn't get to welcome you to the PFs before, since you have been extremely active and I hadn't noticed how new you are.
Welcome to the PFs, and keep up the good work. [:)].
Originally posted by Nereid
How can you recognise consciousness in something?
That's an old philosophical question, and most people don't think of it as resolved. However, Daniel Dennett has put forth what he calls the "intentional stance", which is really just the logical result of a fully Materialistic standpoint, but seems (to me) to resolve the issue. Basically, if something performs the processing functions that our brain performs (which is the production of Multiple Drafts and the question/answer processes - see my brief explanation on page 43 of this thread (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4537&perpage=15&pagenumber=43), or read Consciousness Explained (by Daniel Dennett) if you've never heard of these concepts before) then it is conscious. The reason this is a logical result of the Materialistic standpoint is because to postulate that "something else" is required to produce consciousness form the physical processes, is to leave the realm of Materialism (and thus, of Science).
How can Royce tell that Mentat has consciousness (is conscious)?
Well, actually, he really can't since he's never met me. However, if he did meet me, and could observe the processes of my brain (though I don't see how he could do that, apart form surgery or CAT scans [6)]), then he would know that I was conscious.
How can pelatration tell that the Sun doesn't have consciousness?
Really just the inverse of the previous application of the "intentional stance"...if it doesn't process, producing Multiple Drafts and conducting a complex question/answer process in it's "brain" (CPU) then it is not conscious.
Thanks for the welcome Mentat [:D]
- - - - -
N: How can you recognise consciousness in something?
M: That's an old philosophical question, and most people don't think of it as resolved. However, Daniel Dennett has put forth what he calls the "intentional stance", which is really just the logical result of a fully Materialistic standpoint, but seems (to me) to resolve the issue.
N (new question): Are there other resolutions (than Dennett, followers, and extenders)? For example, pelastration seems to have a firm view which is quite different (see: http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/metaboard/messages18/205.html)
Similarly, Osher Doktorow, on a different superstringtheory.com board which is no longer accessible, also appeared to have very clear, firm views.
- - - - - -
M: Basically, if something performs the processing functions that our brain performs (which is the production of Multiple Drafts and the question/answer processes - see my brief explanation on page 43 of this thread, ... then it is conscious
There is a thread with >40 pages! [8)]
N (new question): How can you tell if something is performing those functions? How can you tell that the Sun isn't?
Originally posted by Nereid
N (new question): Are there other resolutions (than Dennett, followers, and extenders)? For example, pelastration seems to have a firm view which is quite different (see: http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/metaboard/messages18/205.html)
Similarly, Osher Doktorow, on a different superstringtheory.com board which is no longer accessible, also appeared to have very clear, firm views.
Well, surely there are other views about consciousness. However, Dennett's is my favorite, merely because it appeals to the logical end of a purely Materialistic study of consciousness. I suppose other theories could be devised that would fit completely in the Materialistic paradigm, but they would have to include something like the intentional stance - otherwise there would always be the question of "What if all of this physical stuff occurs, and the thing still isn't conscious?".
There is a thread with >40 pages! [8)]
Yeah, and the worst part is, most of it was really a waste of time - though I think it's going in a positive direction now.
N (new question): How can you tell if something is performing those functions? How can you tell that the Sun isn't?
Interesting enough question. I've seen Dennett interviewed before, and here's how I think he would answer (since something like this question was asked him in the interview):
In order for the Sun to be conscious, it would need...
1) A set of input devices, which conveyed information about the outside world to...
2) A central processing unit, whose parts are capable of multi-tasking (if you've read the question/answer party game illustration, then you know why each part should be able to multi-task).
In truth, at the very most fundamental, this is all that would be necessary.
Of course, I have no idea what kind of input devices a star could have, or what kind of CPU (capable of question/answer multi-tasking), but if it does then it is conscious.
N (new question): How can you tell if something is performing those functions? How can you tell that the Sun isn't?
You can't.
IMHO, our working, useful detection of "consciousness" (as opposed to a strict philosophical definition) is in the end a simple subjective function of how the entity behaves. If it behaves like a human, in the way we mentally idealise as conscious, then it is conscious. The less it acts like a human, the less conscious it gets.
So, scientific studies of consciousness are, with current technology, limited to animal/mammal/primate/human behaviour, with a light sprinkling of neuro-science? Else it's philosopy, theory development, or S&D. [?] [:))]
If so, then it suggests an implementable program for discussions in threads like this.
I wonder whether pelastration has an opinion on this?
Question for Mentat:
In your (Dennett-based) view of consciousness, is it:
- binary (or nearly so)? Crudely, a brain either has it or it doesn't?
- one-dimensional? I have more consciousness than my cat, and much more than a bacterium
- multi-dimensional?
Originally posted by Nereid
Question for Mentat:
In your (Dennett-based) view of consciousness, is it:
- binary (or nearly so)? Crudely, a brain either has it or it doesn't?
- one-dimensional? I have more consciousness than my cat, and much more than a bacterium
- multi-dimensional? [/B]
What would multi-dimensional entail?
Examples:
taste: five dimensions - sweet, sour, salty, umami, bitter
sight: four (or five) dimensions - 3 colours (cones; four types in some women) + intensity (rods)
Originally posted by Nereid
Examples:
taste: five dimensions - sweet, sour, salty, umami, bitter
sight: four (or five) dimensions - 3 colours (cones; four types in some women) + intensity (rods)
I still don't see how this applies to consciousness. I might be a little slow right now (been sick for a few days, and I have a pounding headache most of the time), but I just don't see what a multi-dimensional theory of consciousness would be (though I may or may not already have chosen one of the other choices [;)]).
Please clarify further, Nereid.
I still don't see how this applies to consciousness. That's what I'm wondering? In your (Dennett's) view of consciousness, do you either have it or you don't? If so, then consciousness is binary.
Is it something that a paramecium has a tiny bit of, a worm much more, a dog even more, and a human far, far more? If so, then consciousness is one-dimensional. Zoobyshoe seems to hold this view of consciousness (see the thread of the same name in Biology).
Is consciousness something which is qualitatively different for trees, ants, mice, bacteria, fungi, fish, mosquitos, ...? In other words, there is human-consciousness (which different people may or may not have different amounts of), fish-consciousness, tree-consciousness, etc. This would be multi-dimensional. I don't mean that the basis for the different types is (or is not) taxa-related; it might be principal sense (e.g. sight vs smell vs electrical), or sociability (e.g. ants vs tigers).
Sorry to hear you're poorly [:(] Hope you get well soon. [:)]
(*come back sol!)
selfAdjoint
Oct13-03, 01:05 PM
Dennett is a philosopher. He isn't contemplating worms or paramecia, he is discussing the inner experiences of human being. He is trying to sort out and explicate these experiences and get rid of old unproductive explanations like homunculi and mantalistics. He doesn't know any more than the rest of us do what a C. Elegans experiences internally.
phoenixthoth
Oct13-03, 07:43 PM
From Be-ing to Be-ness (http://www.duerden.com)
click on the fish and look under "articles."
"Error 404: page not found"
consciousness can be both multidimensional and one dimensional. by this i mean that though different living beings have different levels of consciousness(/sentience/awareness)geared for their own particular needs(dolphins have sonar consciousness), still living beings have enough similarity amongst themselves so that the degree of consciousness can be determined objectively(more or less) depending on the sophistication of the central information processing system and the input devices. this may not be true for alien life forms (including future computers :) )
referring to an earlier argument, i need to be aware of a bee sting to jerk my hand away. when a bee stings you, you first feel pain and then you jerk your hand away.
sage: i need to be aware of a bee sting to jerk my hand away. when a bee stings you, you first feel pain and then you jerk your hand away. In this respect, how are you different from an aeroplane on autopilot? Or a telecom network with SONET technology deployed?
Consciousness is the perception that an entity has of its position in spacetime. By entity i mean all things from one string to the most complicated combination of strings. Consciousness is in all things or strings i should say. The level of consiousness depends on the grouping of strings in the long period of evoluctionary learning.
From the string to the human being there exists free will or cuantom mechanics. Decision produces consciousness. There is always a choice. There is a consciousness inferior and superior to us. There is a total consciousness on all levels but manifestation of it is only partial on diffent evolutionary levels. Consider the string being conscious of which direction to take. The atom conscious of which atom to combine with. The molecule conscious of which protein to produce. The cell conscious of its unity. The organ conscious of its function. The body conscious of nothing and everything and all working in harmony. There is and has to be a total consciousness of nothing to everything in all things. The laws have been layed and there is only one rule, free will. Free will >>> will determine what we evolve into, maybe into nothing again.[8)]
Rader: Consciousness is the perception that an entity has of its position in spacetime. So it's a purely internal thing then? There's no way I (or Mentat, or any kookaburra, or the M87 galaxy) can (objectively) determine whether you have consciousness?
Originally posted by Nereid
So it's a purely internal thing then? There's no way I (or Mentat, or any kookaburra, or the M87 galaxy) can (objectively) determine whether you have consciousness?
I know that you and Mentat can determine if I have consciousness and the same level as you all. Ask me if the sky is blue. If we all agree that it is blue, we have the same level of consiousness. As for a kookaburra if that is a donkey that has gone crazy, i would not agree with you, he would say it is gray. As for the M87 galaxy or any other i would say no also as they would probably see it as no color or black. Of course its internal for you how you preceieve it. [8)]
Oops, my mistake. I see this is Philosophy, not Science. [6)] [a)]
Originally posted by Nereid
So it's a purely internal thing then? There's no way I (or Mentat, or any kookaburra, or the M87 galaxy) can (objectively) determine whether you have consciousness?
I seen a very interesting program on Spanish television the other night that i would like to share with whoever reads this. I am sure many have heard of out of the body experiences of people who have a heart attack and die and go into the tunnel of light. That is lung heart and brain waves cease, clinically dead. There was one experience in particular that may shed some light on what we are discussing. A blind women who never saw in her life died for one hour and returned to tell her story. She described in full and complete detail her intervention to try and save her life, the people who were in the hospital, the city she hovered over and birds flying through the air ect. This is proff in itself that consiousness is not only in the brain or body but is an entity also apart. A individual consciousnes when in a body can feel emotions but so can it also when outside of the body. It then appears that the body is only an instument to manifest and move arround in the physical plane that we live in. How is it possible to know that we feel emotion consciously? By having someone account there experience from there consciousnes when both live and dead. Could that be scientific proof enough for you.[8)]
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Dennett is a philosopher. He isn't contemplating worms or paramecia, he is discussing the inner experiences of human being. He is trying to sort out and explicate these experiences and get rid of old unproductive explanations like homunculi and mantalistics. He doesn't know any more than the rest of us do what a C. Elegans experiences internally.
This is very true. I would add to that that Dennett does consider the consciousness of non-sentient beings, but mainly as an explanation about of the possible evolutionary steps toward sentient consciousness, in human history.
Originally posted by sage
referring to an earlier argument, i need to be aware of a bee sting to jerk my hand away. when a bee stings you, you first feel pain and then you jerk your hand away.
That has elements of truth and fallacy to it, IMO. The truth is in that you must be "aware" of the sting, in order to recoil, since "awareness" means reacting to the outside environment. However, there is (IMO) a fallacy in the idea that we must feel pain before we jerk our hand away. We do, indeed, react to pain before we recoil, but we do not experience pain (we are not fully conscious of what happened) until after recoiling.
i agree to some extent, mentat. reaction to a bee sting(or to a burnt finger) is what may be called "instinctive"- that is there exists shortcuts in neural circuitry that help us to get away from the source of pain swiftly without the intervention of the primary decision making system. but many such short cuts are learned too. swimming is one. when you begin to learn it your central information processing system is actively engaged in coordinating the arms and the limbs so that this new form of movement can be successfully accomplished. but once we have got the hang of it, swimming becomes "instinctive" in the same way reaction to pain is. a veteran swimmer is much less "aware" of how he is swimming than a newly trained rookie- the former is no longer "experiancing" swimming as he did when he first learnt it.
one question. how is awareness, consciousness and sentience different from each other?
another thing. experiancing is a conscious act(i.e one needs to be conscious to experiance something). so the pain that i experiance after recoiling from a bee sting is something that is possible only because we are conscious(/sentient-whatever). so an animal which is not conscious or sentient should not be able to "experiance" pain. the ointment(or cold water) that we apply to the wound is certainly a conscious decision. i do not know about beetles or bacterias but i have often seen a lion(on television) to lick its wounds, an act that we still do(sucking an injured finger) in absence of an antiseptic. so one would have to conclude that a lion also experiance pain like us and hence is a conscious, sentient animal, if a little less intelligent. same applies to other animals also.so do we have proof there are actually are nonsentient living beings on earth?
nereid, i did not get your point about the autopilot bit.
Originally posted by sage
i agree to some extent, mentat. reaction to a bee sting(or to a burnt finger) is what may be called "instinctive"- that is there exists shortcuts in neural circuitry that help us to get away from the source of pain swiftly without the intervention of the primary decision making system. but many such short cuts are learned too. swimming is one. when you begin to learn it your central information processing system is actively engaged in coordinating the arms and the limbs so that this new form of movement can be successfully accomplished. but once we have got the hang of it, swimming becomes "instinctive" in the same way reaction to pain is. a veteran swimmer is much less "aware" of how he is swimming than a newly trained rookie- the former is no longer "experiancing" swimming as he did when he first learnt it.
Of course this is true. Experience has a part in forming our synaptic tendencies just as genetics does. I don't see the relevance, since, once something becomes insinctual, you are not aware of responding as you have been programmed to do. Thus consciousness becomes secondary to awareness.
one question. how is awareness, consciousness and sentience different from each other?
It's really all about levels. Awareness is the ability to react to your environment. Consciousness is a higher level of awareness, which allows you to react more diversely due to having gained information about your environment. Sentience is yet a higher level; it allows one to choose between more than one possible action, and to make use of proaction (as well as to be conscious of oneself as a distinct entity).
another thing. experiancing is a conscious act(i.e one needs to be conscious to experiance something).
Not necessarily. One need only be aware in order to respond to something, and people often consider responding to something as having "experienced" it (though you are right, consciousness is necessary for one to really have an experience).
so the pain that i experiance after recoiling from a bee sting is something that is possible only because we are conscious(/sentient-whatever). so an animal which is not conscious or sentient should not be able to "experiance" pain.
This is true, but many animals are conscious (as per my previous definition of "consciousness"). Those that are not, of course, still respond to the environment (they are aware), but they do not have the experience of pain (if my definitions are correct).
so do we have proof there are actually are nonsentient living beings on earth?
The entirety of this paragraph, summed up in the (quoted) sentence, is probably cleared up with an understanding of the distinction between consciousness and sentience.
mentat, i think we agree on most points about consciousness. it is a purely biological process by which an organism acquires, processes and reacts to information about its surrounding. of course the thing gets more sophisticated as we move towards more complex lifeforms. hence we have different degrees of consciousness in different animals. well that's it. p.s i'm an admirer of Dennett too.
Originally posted by sage
mentat, i think we agree on most points about consciousness. it is a purely biological process by which an organism acquires, processes and reacts to information about its surrounding. of course the thing gets more sophisticated as we move towards more complex lifeforms. hence we have different degrees of consciousness in different animals. well that's it. p.s i'm an admirer of Dennett too.
Good man! Seriously, Dennett's basic wish is that people would stop mysifying consciousness, and start understanding it. He has provided a step in that direction, and I don't think anyone should ignore that.
This thread is classified as Philosophy. Self Adjoint and Mentat have clarified the terminology somewhat.
If we accept the Dennett/Mentat distinctions between awareness, consciousness, and sentience, then to what extent is it possible to apply the scientific method to study non-human consciousness?
(answering her own question) Without a good means of two-way communication with non-human entities, my guess is the enterprise would be doomed to fail.
Originally posted by Nereid
This thread is classified as Philosophy. Self Adjoint and Mentat have clarified the terminology somewhat.
If we accept the Dennett/Mentat distinctions between awareness, consciousness, and sentience, then to what extent is it possible to apply the scientific method to study non-human consciousness?
(answering his own question) Without a good means of two-way communication with non-human entities, my guess is the enterprise would be doomed to fail.
Its clarified for those who want to see it that way but its not clarity for everyone.
Quess nobody has read Wilder Penfield "The mystery of mind"
Actual scientific investigation demonstates that the brain acts as vehicle of conscioussness of the humnan experience but is not in anyway limited to it. Conscioussness can perform functions inaccessable to the brain and the sences, on quote Wilder Penfield one of the foremost pioneers in modern investigation of the brain.
His investigation on tanatology, the study of near death experiences has termintated in corraborating his point of view that human concsiousness transends the brain. This is a eminaate scientists opinion.
Sounds like this thread is from the dark ages.
[8)]
Originally posted by Nereid
This thread is classified as Philosophy. Self Adjoint and Mentat have clarified the terminology somewhat.
If we accept the Dennett/Mentat distinctions between awareness, consciousness, and sentience, then to what extent is it possible to apply the scientific method to study non-human consciousness?
(answering his own question) Without a good means of two-way communication with non-human entities, my guess is the enterprise would be doomed to fail.
Well, if we can observe a CPU in this non-human subject, which performs the multi-tasking of question/answer and Multiple Drafts (as explained in previous threads), we can be confident that it is conscious.
btw, I like that "Dennett/Mentat" thing. [:D]
Originally posted by Rader
Its clarified for those who want to see it that way but its not clarity for everyone.
Quess nobody has read Wilder Penfield "The mystery of mind"
Actual scientific investigation demonstates that the brain acts as vehicle of conscioussness of the humnan experience but is not in anyway limited to it. Conscioussness can perform functions inaccessable to the brain and the sences, on quote Wilder Penfield one of the foremost pioneers in modern investigation of the brain.
His investigation on tanatology, the study of near death experiences has termintated in corraborating his point of view that human concsiousness transends the brain. This is a eminaate scientists opinion.
Sounds like this thread is from the dark ages.
[8)]
Why? One eminant scientist believing in something doesn't mean there's a consensus. Einstein himself said he would never believe in the randomness of Quantum Mechanics, but it turned out that he was wrong. Besides, for every eminant scientist you can name that believes in such idealistic notions (which, btw, challenge basic principles about science, as I've discussed in previous threads - along with falling into the homunculun problem, which makes them logically flawed as well), I can probably name another, just as prominent, that disagrees (in favor of a more materialistic view).
Originally posted by Mentat
Why? One eminant scientist believing in something doesn't mean there's a consensus. Einstein himself said he would never believe in the randomness of Quantum Mechanics, but it turned out that he was wrong. Besides, for every eminant scientist you can name that believes in such idealistic notions (which, btw, challenge basic principles about science, as I've discussed in previous threads - along with falling into the homunculun problem, which makes them logically flawed as well), I can probably name another, just as prominent, that disagrees (in favor of a more materialistic view).
Then a consenses is proof that something is true. Thats why they burned witches at the stake and Copernicus in his time was wrong.
My point in all this is that human consciousness is ever evolving. What is true today was not yesterday and tomorrow there is a greater truth. For us to try and decribe what is human consciousness we have to use individual subjuntive and objective terms as part of the whole reality. It is a combination of both. Scientific data is not enough to describe conscioussness, there is another reality to the ultimate truth. You can not argue the fact that all scientific data is nothing more than a platform to build on. We have only started climbing the ladder of conscious evolution. Humans are the lone entity, yet found that knows the universe is conscious of itself.
[8)]
Originally posted by Rader
Then a consenses is proof that something is true.
No it's not. Consensus is a proof that something is accepted as true, but not that it is certainly true.
My point in all this is that human consciousness is ever evolving. What is true today was not yesterday and tomorrow there is a greater truth. For us to try and decribe what is human consciousness we have to use individual subjuntive and objective terms as part of the whole reality. It is a combination of both. Scientific data is not enough to describe conscioussness, there is another reality to the ultimate truth. You can not argue the fact that all scientific data is nothing more than a platform to build on.
Yes I can. Scientific data is not a "platform" unless you can tell me what it is that is being "built" on it.
We have only started climbing the ladder of conscious evolution. Humans are the lone entity, yet found that knows the universe is conscious of itself.
But the Universe isn't conscious of itself.
Consensus is a proof that something is accepted as true, but not that it is certainly true.[/QUOTE]
Is in your opinion then, the materialist viewpoint is a consensus to be true? But it may not be certainly true.
QUOTE]Yes I can. Scientific data is not a "platform" unless you can tell me what it is that is being "built" on it.[/QUOTE]
Scientific data is the ojective reality from which you base all your arguments on. The platform is what was learned yesterday. Can you not see that all objective data learned today is truer than yesterday but falser than tomorrow. Where is the true reality?, yestedays experimental proof, todays or tomorrows?
But the Universe isn't conscious of itself.
If it was conscious it would have to be in an unconsiouss state.
Can i try and give you some hard data if not a proof?
Tom made an interesting statement to Royce a while back.
Royce, tell me, how can you know something apart from perceiving it? And furthermore, how can I know that you know something, apart from verifying your perceptions with my own? [QUOTE]No it's not.
You could know it by being put under hypnosis and speak of specific objective realities of someone you never knew. Detailed information that only that person could possible know.
Would you not say that if a unconsciouss sentient human, could manifest to a third party conscious sentient human, objective realities that he has never had, but were of another sentient human, that this would have credibility?
You could then know something without perceiving it, as the you the perceiver and the witness can all account for the same objective fact. The how can I know that you know something, apart from verifying your perceptions with my own, can be answered by verifiying objective realities when both are in an unconscious state. Does not the objective reality come from the consciouss state and the subjective reality come from the unsconscious state?
Read Fred Allen Wolf Ph.D./physicist/ The Dreaming Universe and The Spiritual Universe for some better insight to what I am trying to explain.
[8)]
rader your hypothesis lacks scientific or experimental proof. show me one science journal(reputed of course) where such dramatic conclusions have been verified experimentally , only then i will take your hypothesis seriously.
Originally posted by Rader
Is in your opinion then, the materialist viewpoint is a consensus to be true? But it may not be certainly true.
First of all, I never said that the Materialistic viewpoint was "true". "Truth" cannot be found through philosophy, logic, or science. That is not their purpose.
Secondly, Materialism is a consensus among scientists, but not necessarily among philosophers.
Scientific data is the ojective reality from which you base all your arguments on.
No, scientific data studies the objective reality.
The platform is what was learned yesterday. Can you not see that all objective data learned today is truer than yesterday but falser than tomorrow. Where is the true reality?, yestedays experimental proof, todays or tomorrows?
What about all the long-standing theories, like Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. They weren't just "here today, gone tomorrow", they've stood the test of time and experiment for quite a long time.
If it was conscious it would have to be in an unconsiouss state.
That's a contradiction. Either it's conscious or it's in an unconscious state.
You could know it by being put under hypnosis and speak of specific objective realities of someone you never knew. Detailed information that only that person could possible know.
What makes you think I could do that!?
Would you not say that if a unconsciouss sentient human, could manifest to a third party conscious sentient human, objective realities that he has never had, but were of another sentient human, that this would have credibility?
A human under hypnosis is not unconscious, merely less conscious of that which is around him, and more conscious of his memories.
Originally posted by sage
rader your hypothesis lacks scientific or experimental proof. show me one science journal(reputed of course) where such dramatic conclusions have been verified experimentally , only then i will take your hypothesis seriously.
Sage science journals, conscenses, one mans opinion, objective data, or subjective data in themselves does not confrim anything. They are opinions and part of the total truth. There is scientific data studies of objective reality from many different fields, on the subject of consciousness. The books I have quoted in my post are some of the best. They are the scientists and we read there books. Each one has a part of the total reality. Read 100 books ön the same subject of consiousness and you will get 100 somewhat similar to very radical views of the total reality.
I do not think that consciousness is a purely biological process by which an organism acquires, processes and reacts to information about its surrounding. We dream and we are in a subconscious state. It has a purpose, it would be quite a waste of time if it did not. There are many states of consiousness when that is true but not all.
I am working up to something.
[8)]
Originally posted by Mentat
First of all, I never said that the Materialistic viewpoint was "true". "Truth" cannot be found through philosophy, logic, or science. That is not their purpose.
The "Ultimate Truth" can not be found alone by these but it is wise not to tell lies, 1 plus 1 equals 2 and apples fall. These are some of the tools for finding it. What do you use for finding it?
Secondly, Materialism is a consensus among scientists, but not necessarily among philosophers.
I agree and idealism is a consensus among some open minded scientists who do not see things as a materialist would
No, scientific data studies the objective reality.
loop di loop
What about all the long-standing theories, like Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. They weren't just "here today, gone tomorrow", they've stood the test of time and experiment for quite a long time
There great they give us the best theoretical proofs in our present day of objective reality. The human race has been here for 1 nanosecond in time, nobody uses them but us. 1,000,000 years from now these theories will be simple arithmetic. There will be a more profound understanding than that, which is what we have now, totally different.
That's a contradiction. Either it's conscious or it's in an unconscious state.
You mean like live or dead. I told that story before you ruled it out with Zero. There is enough scientific proof of dead people coming back and telling there whitetunnel stories with concrete objective evidence.
What makes you think I could do that!?
When i said you, i did not mean only you. It can be done by anyone with a conscious mind. There is scientific documentation of consciousness from outside of a individual conscious mind.
A human under hypnosis is not unconscious, merely less conscious of that which is around him, and more conscious of his memories.
Yes language problems.
Both words below try to describe the dream state. Less conscious is just another word that does not fully describe the dream state.
Unconscious> Lacking awareness and the capacity for sensory perception; not conscious. Subconscious> Not wholly conscious; partially or imperfectly conscious.
What would you consider the dream states purpose?
Originally posted by Rader
The "Ultimate Truth" can not be found alone by these but it is wise not to tell lies, 1 plus 1 equals 2 and apples fall. These are some of the tools for finding it. What do you use for finding it?
Those things can be observed directly. I used my eyes to find those "truths", and yet they are not exact truths. For example, at the quantum level, any one subatomic particle can be in two places at once - thus appearing to us to be two particles. So, if I take one particle plus another particle, I could easily have 4 or 100 or [oo].
I agree and idealism is a consensus among some open minded scientists who do not see things as a materialist would.
I never said that idealism was a consensus among any scientists, so how can you "agree"? Besides, the scientific method itself is based on the existence of an objective, and objectively studyable, reality.
There great they give us the best theoretical proofs in our present day of objective reality. The human race has been here for 1 nanosecond in time, nobody uses them but us. 1,000,000 years from now these theories will be simple arithmetic. There will be a more profound understanding than that, which is what we have now, totally different.
BS. There is no grounds to either of those claims (that no other beings use the same physics to describe the Universe, or that more profound understanding will have to be "totally different" from that which we've come to now).
You mean like live or dead. I told that story before you ruled it out with Zero. There is enough scientific proof of dead people coming back and telling there whitetunnel stories with concrete objective evidence.
A person who's brain has literally, and medically, died, cannot come back (unless resurrected by God [;)]). People who tell stories of "white tunnels" were not completely dead, but merely what is called "technically dead" which is where the heart stops beating, but the brain is still somewhat active (active enough to keep one somewhat alive).
When i said you, i did not mean only you. It can be done by anyone with a conscious mind. There is scientific documentation of consciousness from outside of a individual conscious mind.
No there's not.
Both words below try to describe the dream state. Less conscious is just another word that does not fully describe the dream state.
Unconscious> Lacking awareness and the capacity for sensory perception; not conscious. Subconscious> Not wholly conscious; partially or imperfectly conscious.
Fine, and the dream - or hypnotic - state is the second choice "subconscious", not completely unconscious.
What would you consider the dream states purpose?
"Purpose"[?] I never said dreams had a purpose.
Originally posted by Mentat
Those things can be observed directly. I used my eyes to find those "truths", and yet they are not exact truths. For example, at the quantum level, any one subatomic particle can be in two places at once - thus appearing to us to be two particles. So, if I take one particle plus another particle, I could easily have 4 or 100 or [oo].
Yes thats true until there is an observation and the wave function collapes. It seems strange or akward that materialists use this example of subjective reality to describe obejective reality, yet do not want to include it in the equation.
I never said that idealism was a consensus among any scientists, so how can you "agree"? Besides, the scientific method itself is based on the existence of an objective, and objectively studyable, reality.
I said, idealism is a consensus among some open minded scientists who do not see things as a materialist would.
A materialist use subjective material to describe the objective world. Strings and forces have nerer been seen, heard, felt, smelled or tasted.
BS. There is no grounds to either of those claims (that no other beings use the same physics to describe the Universe, or that more profound understanding will have to be "totally different" from that which we've come to now).
Why BS. We have gone from Newtonian, Relativity, Cuantom Mechanics and now Super Strings. Why is there not anything after that? These have been here 1 nano second or 100 years only.
A person who's brain has literally, and medically, died, cannot come back (unless resurrected by God [;)]). People who tell stories of "white tunnels" were not completely dead, but merely what is called "technically dead" which is where the heart stops beating, but the brain is still somewhat active (active enough to keep one somewhat alive).
[8)]The problem here is what is the definition of dead. When the machine beeps and the line is as stait as an arrow thats "technically dead" No lungs no heart and no brain waves is "technically dead" but not finally dead. On quote> by you, unless resurrected by God, the body does not come back to life. There are documented cases of "technically dead" coming back to life after several minutes to hours. So when is the body dead? The body is dead when there is no life or consciousness in it allowed by God. A documented case of 60 minutes dead and returning to life is worth study. If the consciousness when dead comes back to life to account its experience when conscious again, then consciousness is not only in the body and mind.. When conscious becomes subconscious and is occupied by another concscious to relate objective reality, then consciousness is not only in the body and mimd.
No there's not.
There is if you look for it.
Fine, and the dream - or hypnotic - state is the second choice "subconscious", not completely unconscious.
OK
"Purpose"[?] I never said dreams had a purpose.
I never said you did, just interested in your opinion. I started a thread on this subject.
Originally posted by Rader
Yes thats true until there is an observation and the wave function collapes. It seems strange or akward that materialists use this example of subjective reality to describe obejective reality, yet do not want to include it in the equation.
Wait a minute, how does QM have anything to do with "subjective reality"?
I said, idealism is a consensus among some open minded scientists who do not see things as a materialist would.
A materialist use subjective material to describe the objective world. Strings and forces have nerer been seen, heard, felt, smelled or tasted.
But they are postulated based on things that have been
Why BS. We have gone from Newtonian, Relativity, Cuantom Mechanics and now Super Strings. Why is there not anything after that? These have been here 1 nano second or 100 years only.
But, really, Relativity and QM were just modifications (denying some of the central postulates, but not all of them) of Newtonian mechanics, which is still useful for day-to-day life. What I'm trying to say is that, while there have been drastic changes in our conception of the Universe, in the past, there is no reason to believe it will happen again (or that it wont, which is why I'm neutral on that subject, instead of claiming one way or the other).
The problem here is what is the definition of dead. When the machine beeps and the line is as stait as an arrow thats "technically dead" No lungs no heart and no brain waves is "technically dead" but not finally dead.
I don't think the brain waves have ever completely ceased (even if they've fallen into undetectability), when a person was "technically dead" but came back.
If all brain activity ceased, then they wouldn't remember a "white tunnel", since you can't remember without your brain.
On quote> by you, unless resurrected by God...
A small joke, mind you.
...the body does not come back to life. There are documented cases of "technically dead" coming back to life after several minutes to hours. So when is the body dead? The body is dead when there is no life or consciousness in it allowed by God. A documented case of 60 minutes dead and returning to life is worth study. If the consciousness when dead comes back to life to account its experience when conscious again, then consciousness is not only in the body and mind.. When conscious becomes subconscious and is occupied by another concscious to relate objective relity, then consciousness is not only in the body and mimd.
But this is all ad hoc, and thus violates Occam's Razor at every turn. Is it not better to stick to less assumptions?
There is if you look for it.
Almost anything can "exist" for those looking for it. Those that "look for" signs of intelligent design in the Universe are going to find it, while those who look for chaos are going to find that.
I never said you did, just interested in your opinion. I started a thread on this subject.
Oh, ok.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mentat
[B]Wait a minute, how does QM have anything to do with "subjective reality"?
In the way that QM deals with things that can not be seen on the fundamental level. If the description of subjective is existing only within the experiencer's mind, where does that put particles. Everytime we delve deeper we are dealing with the subjective, only what can be seen is the objective. Before there was the first observation and that wave function collaped, there was nothing but sujective reality, only because of a Observer, objective reality came into being.
But they are postulated based on things that have been
Yes they are but before they have been, it was subjective reality.
But, really, Relativity and QM were just modifications (denying some of the central postulates, but not all of them) of Newtonian mechanics, which is still useful for day-to-day life. What I'm trying to say is that, while there have been drastic changes in our conception of the Universe, in the past, there is no reason to believe it will happen again (or that it wont, which is why I'm neutral on that subject, instead of claiming one way or the other).
My opinion is that its short minded to think we have done it all. When we are a phase III society system and can harness the energy from an entire galaxy, it will be drastically distinct.
I forget who said it in physics there is two things for sure physics and stamp collecting. By stamp collecting is meant we give names to many things we do not even know what they really are. No pun intended the physicist of today does a fine job of explaining objective reality with experimental objective proofs.
I don't think the brain waves have ever completely ceased (even if they've fallen into undetectability), when a person was "technically dead" but came back.
[/COLOR] I agree with that the machines could be not good enough to detect faint brain waves. This could be the reason why they come back, they were never dead, God maybe had no hand here.
If all brain activity ceased, then they wouldn't remember a "white tunnel", since you can't remember without your brain.
Ok lets leave it at that we do not know if there is no brain waves which means total death or if they are just so faint we can not detect them
But that is not the quesion we really want to answer. The important question is does consciousness exist outside of the body whether or not it is alive or dead?[/COLOR
[COLOR=blue]Lets try and reason this out with the data we have. There are thousands of cases of white tunnel dreaming where the patient can descirbe objective reality that occured during the time period the mind and body is subcconscious.
How can there be no awareness, no perception, no consciousness and yet the conscious mind of the patient later recall objective reality when the patient was in a subconsiouss state.
A small joke, mind you.
I thought you were serious, maybe getting soft or something.
But this is all ad hoc, and thus violates Occam's Razor at every turn. Is it not better to stick to less assumptions?
I am not trying to make a assumption, iam trying to use objective data for proof of a subjective reality.
Almost anything can "exist" for those looking for it. Those that "look for" signs of intelligent design in the Universe are going to find it, while those who look for chaos are going to find
that.
Anything the human mind can imagine will one day be reality.
Oh, ok.
What i want is a new definition for consciousness.1. Consciousness is awareness of itself. 2. Consciousness itself is the universe. 3 The conscious universe is in all things and all things are in the universe, therefore consciousness is everywhere. 4. Consciousness is cummulative and reductive. 5. Consciousness manifests itself on its evolutionary level, although it knows all levels.
[8)]
Well i have pretty much said what i wanted on this thread. I leave to all my friends who answered me, this link.
It is on Conscienciologia the study of consciousness devided into 70 categorical sciences of 12 basic groups. 700 scientific experiments for all who wish to read and investigate them.
http://www.mundoiac.org/
[8)]
Originally posted by Rader
In the way that QM deals with things that can not be seen on the fundamental level. If the description of subjective is existing only within the experiencer's mind, where does that put particles?
It puts them as objective, since particles can be seen (in principle).
Everytime we delve deeper we are dealing with the subjective, only what can be seen is the objective. Before there was the first observation and that wave function collaped, there was nothing but sujective reality, only because of a Observer, objective reality came into being. [/COLOR]
Not again. Forgive me, but I'm a little tired of the "observer" problem. Curse these books for the layman that make it seem as though QM requires a conscious observer!
Yes they are but before they have been, it was subjective reality.
If they hadn't been observed, they would not have been a subjective reality. Your subjective experience is dependent on your having had an objective world to experience.
My opinion is that its short minded to think we have done it all. When we are a phase III society system and can harness the energy from an entire galaxy, it will be drastically distinct.
I don't think we've done it all. I think there might need to be a complete revision of everything but that that's just as likely as that there will only need to be modifications.
I agree with that the machines could be not good enough to detect faint brain waves. This could be the reason why they come back, they were never dead, God maybe had no hand here.
I never said He did.
Ok lets leave it at that we do not know if there is no brain waves which means total death or if they are just so faint we can not detect them
As you wish.
But that is not the quesion we really want to answer. The important question is does consciousness exist outside of the body whether or not it is alive or dead?
Yes, and part of your answer hinged on the out-of-body experiences which you have now requested that we leave out.
Lets try and reason this out with the data we have. There are thousands of cases of white tunnel dreaming where the patient can descirbe objective reality that occured during the time period the mind and body is subcconscious.
Subconscious, but never unconscious.
How can there be no awareness, no perception, no consciousness and yet the conscious mind of the patient later recall objective reality when the patient was in a subconsiouss state.
If there was no awareness, then they were never aware of a white tunnel. If there was awareness, then they were.
[quote]
I thought you were serious, maybe getting soft or something.
Making sure I didn't bore you by being "too serious", as I have been accused of many times before.
Anything the human mind can imagine will one day be reality.
I can imagine a human flying without apparatus. Are you willing to stake your life on the assumption that this will be possible one day?
What i want is a new definition for consciousness.1. Consciousness is awareness of itself.
Not necessarily. A being could be conscious of it's surroundings without being conscious of itself.
2. Consciousness itself is the universe.
Impossible, consciousness cannot be both a unique part of the Universe, and the Universe itself.
3 The conscious universe is in all things and all things are in the universe, therefore consciousness is everywhere.
Panpsychism?
4. Consciousness is cummulative and reductive.
Explain.
5. Consciousness manifests itself on its evolutionary level, although it knows all levels.
Explain.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mentat
[B]It puts them as objective, since particles can be seen (in principle).
That is only in part true and you know that. Everything from particles to the the plank length is subjective material. Visual confirmation with experimental confirmed data makes the objective proof.
Not again. Forgive me, but I'm a little tired of the "observer" problem. Curse these books for the layman that make it seem as though QM requires a conscious observer!
Im all ears then expalin QM in another way. Even Albert said he did not understand it. I understand it that way. My whole thesis is based on that fact.
If they hadn't been observed, they would not have been a subjective reality. Your subjective experience is dependent on your having had an objective world to experience.
How can you change my words backwards? There was an observation and therfore there is objective reality.
I don't think we've done it all. I think there might need to be a complete revision of everything but that that's just as likely as that there will only need to be modifications.
Thats a viable possibility but it does not coincide with historical evidence. Science advances in quantum leaps not small modifications. Your looking at it in to small a time frame.
I never said He did.
OK But does that mean it is not a possibility?
As you wish.
Only for the moment.
Whether there is no brain waves is not important as it is a aspect of the physical body.
Yes, and part of your answer hinged on the out-of-body experiences which you have now requested that we leave out.
You have a way of twisting my words to suite your intention. An astral trip of two individuals confirming the same objective data is worth looking into. See the link on my previous post.
Subconscious, but never unconscious.
subconcious is one thing as unconsiouss meaning dead.[/COLOR
Making sure I didn't bore you by being "too serious", as I have been accused of many times before.
You are not boring me, be yourself that is why we are exchanging thought.
I can imagine a human flying without apparatus. Are you willing to stake your life on the assumption that this will be possible one day?
Ask that question to Orvill Wright in the context of his time with a apparatus. My answer is "YES" Did you mean with a body or without it?
Not necessarily. A being could be conscious of it's surroundings without being conscious of itself.
That is subconciousness. It is a form of consciousness the dream state.
Impossible, consciousness cannot be both a unique part of the Universe, and the Universe itself.
The universe is holographic as is concsiousness. Same principle all is in every part.
Panpsychism?
The conscious universe is in all things and all things are in the universe, therefore consciousness is everywhere.
My thesis
Explain.
Consciousness is cummulative and reductive. Consciousness is cummulative in evolutionary objective reality and reductive when the form ceases to exist objectivly and returns to its subjective reality.
Explain.
Consciousness manifests itself on its evolutionary level, although it knows all levels. Consciousness evolves through objective realities, the means by which it does is though the total "subjective truth"
We need to ask more important questions. Why is there two realities subjective and objective?
What is the purpose of objective reality evolving?
Why are we on the objective side of reality or are we?
Consciousness comes from self awareness which is what most animals use. As our senses take in information from the outside world to our brain this information passes through our brain's electromagnetic field to neurons which then goes back through the magnetic field where a consciousness is formed creating a self-referring loop. This recycling of information through the electro magnetic field in our brains which is created by collective, synchronous neuron firings is what makes us able to recall what we have just done.
Originally posted by Netme
Consciousness comes from self awareness which is what most animals use. As our senses take in information from the outside world to our brain this information passes through our brain's electromagnetic field to neurons which then goes back through the magnetic field where a consciousness is formed creating a self-referring loop. This recycling of information through the electro magnetic field in our brains which is created by collective, synchronous neuron firings is what makes us able to recall what we have just done.
Thats a very good explanation of how consciousness works in a body in the objective world when we are in the wake state. When we are in the dream state or subconcious state, there is no information from the outside world to our brain. We can recall our dreams without our senses taking in information from the outside world.
What would be your explanation of consciousness when no biological functions or stimulus are occuring from the outside world?
[8)]
Mumeishi
Nov13-03, 07:30 PM
Consciousness is simply the universe existing from a particular coherent point of view within itself at a particular moment. It is a massive convergence of information.
Originally posted by Rader
Im all ears then expalin QM in another way. Even Albert said he did not understand it. I understand it that way. My whole thesis is based on that fact.
Nobody can conceive of QM. We just don't progress that way mentally. Man, centuries ago, didn't need to leap out of the way of one creature jumping at him from two different sides. [:D]
As it is, conscious observation is not necessary for Quantum Mechanics to work.
How can you change my words backwards? There was an observation and therfore there is objective reality.
That cannot be true. If there was no objective reality, there would have been no observation, in the first place. IOW, objective reality can exist without being observed, but observation cannot take place without an objective reality that existed before said observation.
Thats a viable possibility but it does not coincide with historical evidence. Science advances in quantum leaps not small modifications. Your looking at it in to small a time frame.
And how long did you think science had existed altogether. The human species has existed for less than the blink of an eye in geological or astronomical terms. I've only got "small time frames" to deal with.
OK But does that mean it is not a possibility?
No, but I don't like to cut against the grain of Occam's Razor when I don't need to.
Whether there is no brain waves is not important as it is a aspect of the physical body.
There is nothing to the body but the physical. I've already explained the deductive logical validity of this statement. If there were some non-physical aspect to the body, it would have no way of interacting with the physical aspect.
subconcious is one thing as unconsiouss meaning dead.
What?
You are not boring me, be yourself that is why we are exchanging thought.
Thank you.
Ask that question to Orvill Wright in the context of his time with a apparatus. My answer is "YES" Did you mean with a body or without it?
A human does nothing without a body. Look up the definition of "human".
Besides, flying without any apparatus, if it will be possible at some point, should be possible now.
That is subconciousness. It is a form of consciousness the dream state.
Why do you say that? If I'm not paying any attention to what I'm feeling right now, but only thinking about the words on the computer screen, I'm not "subconscious" or "dreaming", am I?
The universe is holographic as is concsiousness. Same principle all is in every part.
This is becoming a completely ad hoc argument on your side, since this is yet another added assumption.
The conscious universe is in all things and all things are in the universe, therefore consciousness is everywhere.
My thesis
But you have not proven the first two propositions, so "therefore" doesn't really belong in that sentence, does it? You are stating this as though there were deductive validity to it, but there is no proof for the first two premises.
Consciousness is cummulative and reductive. Consciousness is cummulative in evolutionary objective reality and reductive when the form ceases to exist objectivly and returns to its subjective reality.
And yet again, another unproven assumption. You are just digging yourself a deeper hole, as far as making a good philosophical stand.
We need to ask more important questions. Why is there two realities subjective and objective?
There aren't!
What is the purpose of objective reality evolving?
Does purpose exist, Rader?
Originally posted by Mentat
Nobody can conceive of QM. We just don't progress that way mentally. Man, centuries ago, didn't need to leap out of the way of one creature jumping at him from two different sides. [:D]
But we have models and ideas to rationalize how it works and we know it does or we would not be able to watch TV.
As it is, conscious observation is not necessary for Quantum Mechanics to work.
Thats not the way the particles are described in physics. They can not be located until observed.
That cannot be true. If there was no objective reality, there would have been no observation, in the first place. IOW, objective reality can exist without being observed, but observation cannot take place without an objective reality that existed before said observation.
Thats contradictory to what is reality. There must be a first observer then the first wave funtion collapses and the virtual particle leaves subjective reality and becomes oblective reality. The chain of observations continues from 1> infinity > evolution occurs and we exist.
And how long did you think science had existed altogether. The human species has existed for less than the blink of an eye in geological or astronomical terms. I've only got "small time frames" to deal with.
You use my observation and argument to confirm something is not true. Yes we agree we have been here a short period of time BUT scientific advancement is growiing in quantum leaps. 2>4>16>256>65536> not 1>2>3>4>5. Tecknology start slows but when it gets moving it is like a locamotive train.
No, but I don't like to cut against the grain of Occam's Razor when I don't need to.
If nobody cut against grain and disagreed there would be no new ideas and advancement.
There is nothing to the body but the physical. I've already explained the deductive logical validity of this statement. If there were some non-physical aspect to the body, it would have no way of interacting with the physical aspect.
Wrong there is scientific study and documenttion all over the planet that confirms your statement is false.
It has been said that the distance from you and me to the end of the universe is equivilent to the distance from the center of an atom to the planck length. We have not discovered what is there yet, do you realize how large a distance that is, it is another universe. Yet whatever is there effects objective reality and it is until viewed subjective reality. Yet you say, if there were some non-physical aspect to the body, it would have no way of interacting with the physical aspect. When we can see what is there at the planck lenght and it is objective, i will believe it, until then my thesis is as valid as yours.
What?
They should take unconsciousness out of the dictionary or refrase its meaning, as it has the same meaning as subconsciousness. They should take the un and make it a no. Noconsciousness meaning dead, gone back to fundamental base conciousness found in the atom. As you would say electro-magnetic covalent bonding.
Thank you.
[:)]
A human does nothing without a body. Look up the definition of "human".
Got you there, check mate. You mean a word and meaning in the dictionary makes a divine truth. Human today is not what it was yesterday and not what it will be tomorrow. There is scientific evidence that it is false.
Besides, flying without any apparatus, if it will be possible at some point, should be possible now.
It is, it is called among many things a astral trip.
Why do you say that? If I'm not paying any attention to what I'm feeling right now, but only thinking about the words on the computer screen, I'm not "subconscious" or "dreaming", am I?
You had better go to my thread on Why do we dream? WoW you mean to tell me you do not daydream. Nobody can keep a perfect concentration in the objective world, we move between the objective and subjective during the day as well as sleeptime..
This is becoming a completely ad hoc argument on your side, since this is yet another added assumption.
Without assumption there is no advancement, i do agree that objective proofs of subjective reality is necessary and there are.
But you have not proven the first two propositions, so "therefore" doesn't really belong in that sentence, does it? You are stating this as though there were deductive validity to it, but there is no proof for the first two premises.
The universe is holographic as is concsiousness. The conscious universe is in all things and all things are in the universe, therefore consciousness is everywhere.
There aren't
There are two realities and for me the purpose of the subjective is perfection in the objective.. The question is why? and for me the answer is the beauty of creation is to create something from nothing and evolve into perfection.
Does purpose exist, Rader?
Does purpose exist? Ya for me it does and for who it does not, there is no need for existance. Everything has a purpose...
[8)]
phoenixthoth
Nov18-03, 10:25 AM
http://twm.co.nz/consciousness.html
Originally posted by Rader
But we have models and ideas to rationalize how it works and we know it does or we would not be able to watch TV.
Yes, we have models that make it easier to work with, and we know that it exists, but we cannot conceptualize it in our minds. Much like a fourth spacial dimension (which must also exist, for string theory to be correct (as I suspect it is [:)]), and for which we can make models to work with the concept) cannot be conceived.
Thats not the way the particles are described in physics. They can not be located until observed.
Yes, but the word "observation" takes on a completely new meaning at the quantum level. There are numerous old threads on this, and the conclusion has always been the same: Though we cannot know for sure what the quantum realm is like, current science dictates that it is probabilistic by its very nature, and conscious observation is not special at that level.
Thats contradictory to what is reality. There must be a first observer then the first wave funtion collapses and the virtual particle leaves subjective reality and becomes oblective reality. The chain of observations continues from 1> infinity > evolution occurs and we exist.
This is the "New Agish" take on QM, but, I assure you, it is not the actual physics. QM, of its own accord, makes no claims with regard to consciousness or conscious observation. There are many experts here on the PFs that will tell you (and have told others) exactly the same thing I'm telling you. QM is a mathematical theory, used to describe quantum reality...it does not need consciousness.
You use my observation and argument to confirm something is not true. Yes we agree we have been here a short period of time BUT scientific advancement is growiing in quantum leaps. 2>4>16>256>65536> not 1>2>3>4>5. Tecknology start slows but when it gets moving it is like a locamotive train.
It would, perhaps, be good for you to study the history of science. There have been very few "quantum leaps" (I never understood that phrase's origin, but I know what it means) in science that were not grounded on "small steps".
If nobody cut against grain and disagreed there would be no new ideas and advancement.
I agree completely on this. However, Occam's Razor is not the same thing as "generally accepted truth", it is a philosophical guideline, that has proved very useful in the past, and is still a part of the scientific method for contructing new theories.
Wrong there is scientific study and documenttion all over the planet that confirms your statement is false.
I'm sorry, but I disagree. "Out-of-body experiences" and other such phenomena can easily be explained (or "explained away", whichever you prefer) in completely physical terms.
It has been said that the distance from you and me to the end of the universe is equivilent to the distance from the center of an atom to the planck length. We have not discovered what is there yet, do you realize how large a distance that is, it is another universe. Yet whatever is there effects objective reality and it is until viewed subjective reality. Yet you say, if there were some non-physical aspect to the body, it would have no way of interacting with the physical aspect. When we can see what is there at the planck lenght and it is objective, i will believe it, until then my thesis is as valid as yours.
The minimal or maximal size of reality doesn't appear relevant to whether there is something non-physical in the universe.
Besides, as I said, there is a deductively valid argument supporting my stand that it is impossible for a non-physical object (by the very definitions of the terms being used) to interact with a physical one.
They should take unconsciousness out of the dictionary or refrase its meaning, as it has the same meaning as subconsciousness. They should take the un and make it a no. Noconsciousness meaning dead, gone back to fundamental base conciousness found in the atom. As you would say electro-magnetic covalent bonding.
I was agreeing with you until you got to the part about "base consciousness found in an atom"...what's that about? An atom is not conscious.
Besides, "un" actually does mean (as a prefix) "no". Dictionaries, as you've implied, do often need rephrasing, however, since they like to cater to the "common-usage" instead of actual meaning.
Got you there, check mate. You mean a word and meaning in the dictionary makes a divine truth. Human today is not what it was yesterday and not what it will be tomorrow. There is scientific evidence that it is false.
Perhaps you've taken a pawn, but there is no check-mate [;)]. I understand that what the dictionary says is not necessarily true, but the etymological roots of the terms being used agree with the current definitions...ergo, "human" refers to a physical concept.
It is, it is called among many things a astral trip.
...and is almost always dismissed by serious scholars as "pseudo-science" or "mysticism".
You had better go to my thread on Why do we dream? WoW you mean to tell me you do not daydream. Nobody can keep a perfect concentration in the objective world, we move between the objective and subjective during the day as well as sleeptime..
I "daydream", but I am not doing so right now.
Without assumption there is no advancement, i do agree that objective proofs of subjective reality is necessary and there are.
But ad hoc arguments go against Occam's Razor, as well as against the rational argument itself...there can be no progress if anyone can "prove" their side by adding more and more assumptions (that's why Occam's Razor's so useful, ITFP).
The universe is holographic as is concsiousness. The conscious universe is in all things and all things are in the universe, therefore consciousness is everywhere.
Adding assumptions again...doing this can only lead to a "plug my ears and scream 'I'm right your wrong'" type argument, and is not at all helping us rationalize on this topic.
Got to go right now. Sorry. Will complete response tomorrow.
We could, of course, discount for these purposes the role of mental qualities in sensing things. But that would undermine the very distinction between being conscious of something by sensing it and being conscious of that thing by having a thought about it. If our awareness of our conscious states involves no characteristic mental qualities, it is indistinguishable from our being conscious of those states by our having thoughts of some suitable sort about them.
We could or can conclude, then, that we are aware of our conscious mental states not by sensing them, but by having thoughts about them. To have a convenient label, I shall refer to the thoughts in virtue of which we are conscious of our conscious mental states as higher-order thoughts.
Just a hypothesis on consciousness, I suppose.
Originally posted by Jeebus [/B]
We could, of course, discount for these purposes the role of
mental qualities in sensing things. But that would undermine the
very distinction between being conscious of something by sensing it
and being conscious of that thing by having a thought about it. If
our awareness of our conscious states involves no characteristic
mental qualities, it is indistinguishable from our being conscious
of those states by our having thoughts of some suitable sort about
them.
This is the very essence that distinguises humans from all other animals. Conscious thought, reason, free will and purpose not only conscious stimulus and reaction.
We could or can conclude, then, that we are aware of our conscious
mental states not by sensing them, but by having thoughts about
them. To have a convenient label, I shall refer to the thoughts in
virtue of which we are conscious of our conscious mental states as
higher-order thoughts.
We are aware of awareness, to the point of making conscious decisions based on purpose not only need.
Just a hypothesis on consciousness, I suppose.
I believe it is provable though conscious objective facts, individually and collectively.
[8)]
Originally posted by Jeebus
We could, of course, discount for these purposes the role of
mental qualities in sensing things. But that would undermine the
very distinction between being conscious of something by sensing it
and being conscious of that thing by having a thought about it. If
our awareness of our conscious states involves no characteristic
mental qualities, it is indistinguishable from our being conscious
of those states by our having thoughts of some suitable sort about
them.
We could or can conclude, then, that we are aware of our conscious
mental states not by sensing them, but by having thoughts about
them. To have a convenient label, I shall refer to the thoughts in
virtue of which we are conscious of our conscious mental states as
higher-order thoughts.
Just a hypothesis on consciousness, I suppose.
Basically this is correct, but I would modify it somewhat, in light of Dennett's reasoning on the matter. You see, it's true that we only ever subjectively experience things (it doesn't make sense to "objectively experience something"...if it's your experience, it's subjective), but the process of subjective experience, is purely a neuronal/synaptic activity, which requires 1) having had previous input from the objective reality, and 2) having remembered it.
Originally posted by Rader
This is the very essence that distinguises humans from all other animals. Conscious thought, reason, free will and purpose not only conscious stimulus and reaction.
Have you read Consciousness Explained yet? Conscious thought, reason, free will (which is dealt with in much more detail in "Freedom Evolves", also by Dan Dennett), and purpose are just advanced (modified and specified) versions of those same "stimulus/reaction" actions of the other animals.
We are aware of awareness, to the point of making conscious decisions based on purpose not only need.
But this is a result of the multi-tasking of sets of neurons...again, you've got to read that book!
I believe it is provable though conscious objective facts, individually and collectively.
So, you mean it's testable, right? No hypothesis can ever be "proven".
Originally posted by Mentat
Have you read Consciousness Explained yet? Conscious thought, reason, free will (which is dealt with in much more detail in "Freedom Evolves", also by Dan Dennett), and purpose are just advanced (modified and specified) versions of those same "stimulus/reaction" actions of the other animals.
Its ordered along with Darwins dangerous idea. But first i have to read Power verses Force and The eye of the eye by David Hawkins.
I could advise you to read The self aware universe by Amit Goswani, Totality of implicit order by David Bohm and The self aware universe by Alan Wolf.
But this is a result of the multi-tasking of sets of neurons...again, you've got to read that book!
I will thank you for telling me about it.
So, you mean it's testable, right? No hypothesis can ever be "proven".
HYPOTHESIS> A tentative explanation that accounts for a set of facts and can be tested by further investigation; a theory
Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
A hypothesis is testable it works like this thought>assumption>theory>experiment>proof.
These are the 5 basic steps of science. But then again is it not the biggest assumtion of all time to thing that proof will not change.
No experiment is ever finished, since any number of observers may yet observe the results and influence them.
[8)]
pelastration
Nov21-03, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by Rader
What would be your explanation of consciousness when no biological functions or stimulus are occuring from the outside world?
[8)]
Then you capture oscillations of deeper spacetime layers. Spacetime layers act as conductors.
I could advise you to read The self aware universe by Amit Goswani, Totality of implicit order by David Bohm and The self aware universe by Alan Wolf.
Hmm, maybe I will. Not my usual kind of reading, but I like to stay open-minded.
Originally posted by Mentat
Basically this is correct, but I would modify it somewhat, in light of Dennett's reasoning on the matter. You see, it's true that we only ever subjectively experience things (it doesn't make sense to "objectively experience something"...if it's your experience, it's subjective), but the process of subjective experience, is purely a neuronal/synaptic activity, which requires 1) having had previous input from the objective reality, and 2) having remembered it.
Dennets proofs or reasoning? Reasonings are assumptions also not proven. There is just as much evidence out there that it works biologically, that there is, that it does not, the evidence of ESP PK NDE DREAMS ect. ect. ect., that consciousness is not only a biological function. There has been research and confirmed results by qualified scientists well above probability. Probability is mathematics.
1) having had previous input from the objective reality, and 2) having remembered it.
You brought up the two points that determine the proof. These two points have been proven wrong in the 1980/s by scientific testing with probability proofs. The tests were to prove, that consciousness is also outside the body, and that it does not need to have either, objective reality experience, or remembrance of it.
It was found beyond probabilty that this was true.
One of the greatest debuncker of charlatans of all time in the end became a believer Richard Hodgson.
Besides, as I said, there is a deductively valid argument supporting my stand that it is impossible for a non-physical object (by the very definitions of the terms being used) to interact with a physical one.
Why is that? That is precisely what happenes when energy is converted into matter. Fuzzy states become objective reality when observed. What does observed really mean? Contact with the wave funtion. Why can not?, the wave funtion of thought, not interact with others to create objective data. Thats exactly what happenes on the fundamental level, with thought waves, its not only internal biologically, only part of the function.
Read the work of Hans J. Eysenck and Carl Sargent
[8)]
Originally posted by pelastration
Then you capture oscillations of deeper spacetime layers. Spacetime layers act as conductors.
Why can not?, the wave funtion of thought, not interact with others to create objective data. Is thought limited to inside your head. Why?
Only with one starting 'membrane tube' everything can be explained
This would be the mother SAS (self aware structure) that no one has yet defined mathematically, to define how fuzzy structures evolve into complexity.
Does your pelastration tube have a mathematical structure defined as of yet?
[8)]
pelastration
Nov22-03, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Rader
Why can not?, the wave funtion of thought, not interact with others to create objective data. Is thought limited to inside your head. Why?
Sorry don't get it.
Spacetime layers interact with each other. Excitations make new couplings: New data.
Spacetime communication by spacetime oscillations is also non-local. (thus not limited to the brain). This is the explanation for example: Jung's unconsciousness.
Originally posted by Rader
This would be the mother SAS (self aware structure) that no one has yet defined mathematically, to define how fuzzy structures evolve into complexity.
I don't claim that the total system is self-aware. Indeed I explain how 'chaos' becomes 'order'. What's your alternative? None. You haven't even a single image to solve that. You are lost in dualism. I just state that from a certain level of complexity you have interactions that provide various levels of information exchange, because specific spacetime levels conduct oscillations which are 'recognized' by other resonant couplings.
Originally posted by Rader
[[COLOR=red]Does your pelastration tube have a mathematical structure defined as of yet?
[8)]
You don't have to be a rocket-engineer to understand that if everything happens INSIDE a closed structure ... everything that stays inside that closed system is in balance. There is no lost of energy. So what's your point? Math is just book-keeping.
Originally posted by pelastration
Sorry don't get it.
Spacetime layers interact with each other. Excitations make new couplings: New data.
Spacetime communication by spacetime oscillations is also non-local. (thus not limited to the brain). This is the explanation for example: Jung's unconsciousness.
That was a question of agreement. Was justlooking for a deeper answer. The concept is the same. This is how consciousness interact with other consciousness. There have been an exhauted number of experiments with ESP testing of non-local consciousness and the results have been well above probability that they are not chance.
I don't claim that the total system is self-aware. Indeed I explain how 'chaos' becomes 'order'. What's your alternative? None. You haven't even a single image to solve that. You are lost in dualism. I just state that from a certain level of complexity you have interactions that provide various levels of information exchange, because specific spacetime levels conduct oscillations which are 'recognized' by other resonant couplings.
My alternative is, for the the total system to be self-aware, it would need a purpose. That would have to be the first paramenter in order for it to work. 'chaos' becomes 'order' with purpose.
You don't have to be a rocket-engineer to understand that if everything happens INSIDE a closed structure ... everything that stays inside that closed system is in balance. There is no lost of energy. So what's your point? Math is just book-keeping.
You answered my question on your site. Yes i have read also the Michael Kaku comment. But... the book the bookkeeper and the accounting are all important to understand knowledge.
The most interesting and important scientific work is - in my opinion - "deformational structures" of Sergey Kokarev, and contains the WAY to prove TUNITY. I work actually on a mathematical presentation.
I found your site very interesting, many of your points, i found through thouht, many years ago before reading or searching the answers.
[8)]
Originally posted by Rader
Dennets proofs or reasoning? Reasonings are assumptions also not proven. There is just as much evidence out there that it works biologically, that there is, that it does not, the evidence of ESP PK NDE DREAMS ect. ect. ect., that consciousness is not only a biological function. There has been research and confirmed results by qualified scientists well above probability. Probability is mathematics.
Nothing is provable beyond probability, especially not in Science. QM dictates that all things happen as a function of expressed probabilities. Aside from this, the very Method of Science is an Inductive one, and can only attain Inductive validity...which is not equal to "truth".
You brought up the two points that determine the proof. These two points have been proven wrong in the 1980/s by scientific testing with probability proofs. The tests were to prove, that consciousness is also outside the body, and that it does not need to have either, ojective reality experience, or remembrance of it.
It was found beyond probabilty that this was true.
BS. There's no way this could have been "proven", for the following reasons:
1) It would have created a "shockwave" throughout the scientific and philosophical community that would have put an end to AI research, and would never have allowed Dennett and LeDoux to write their books.
2) Nothing is ever "proven", in science.
One of the greatest debuncker of charlatans of all time in the end became a believer Richard Hodgson.
Irrelevant (no offense); we are not to follow the example of previous skeptics, except in their skill at practicing skepticism.
Why is that? That is precisely what happenes when energy is converted into matter. Fuzzy states become objective reality when observed. What does observed really mean? Contact with the wave funtion. Why can not?, the wave funtion of thought, not interact with others to create objective data.
Because there are no discreet units of "thought" (read the book, man). Besides, thought occurs in brains, which are composed of neurons, which are way too big to be distinguished from a rock at the subatomic level.
[COLOR=red]Read the work of Hans J. Eysenck and Carl Sargent
Who are they?
selfAdjoint
Nov24-03, 07:40 PM
Here is Eysenck's obituary (http://www.crispian.demon.co.uk/eysenckob.htm). He was a famous and controversial psychologist who emphasized the genetic origins of intelligence and other personality characteristics. I would be very interested to know why Rader thinks he supported PK.
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Here is Eysenck's obituary (http://www.crispian.demon.co.uk/eysenckob.htm). He was a famous and controversial psychologist who emphasized the genetic origins of intelligence and other personality characteristics. I would be very interested to know why Rader thinks he supported PK.
It seems to be a biased obituary, that you found selfAjoint, it has that after taste upon reading it. Thanks for leaving the link so anyone can verfify and make there own opinion. Eysenck's wrote after 1980, books publicizing the results of scientific investigation on PK. Prior to that he wrote over 600 publized articles and 32 books, he was an expert in his own field. The whole controversy hear is not who supports what. What does support mean?, thats a new one. The question is >What do you think consciousness is? You have read all my posts. My answer is > consciousness is awarenes inside and outside of biological systems. My conclusion is, that after several decades of hard scientific studies on this question, there is substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is evidence well beyond 50% probabilty graph. I do not use the word proof as proof in scientific studies is only temporal, knowlege changes, or rather our scientific conclusion of it changes. Proof of anything is only temporal !!!, scientific evidence is a good basis to verfy a objective reality, although even scientific evidence can be wrong or new knowledge added to it, to make it more perfect. Do you really think that the existnece of the electron has anymore verificablity than if consciousness exists outside of the biological system? We each do our best to judge with the evidence on hand. My opinion is based on probability results the same as the existence of the electron. The evidence >http://twm.co.nz/teleg_PK.htm
http://twm.co.nz/conscuniv.htm
[8)]
Originally posted by Mentat
Nothing is provable beyond probability, especially not in Science. QM dictates that all things happen as a function of expressed probabilities. Aside from this, the very Method of Science is an Inductive one, and can only attain Inductive validity...which is not equal to "truth".
I agree and the reasoning behind it is that knowlege changes, or rather our scientific conclusion of it changes. Yes again, inductive validity is only proofs for the moment. The wave function of knowledge changes over time, thats why nothing is a absolute "truth"
BS. There's no way this could have been "proven", for the following reasons:
1) It would have created a "shockwave" throughout the scientific and philosophical community that would have put an end to AI research, and would never have allowed Dennett and LeDoux to write their books.
2) Nothing is ever "proven", in science.
1) "Shockwave" You mean like when Copernicus told the world the sun is the center of our the solar system. The Catholic Church agreed 500 hundred years later, it was so. Not that there approval made it so but though many scientific probabilty studies, then did they accept it, as do you and I. For every book written there is a opposite opinion.
2)Parden me my deepest apologies. Proven was a slip of the tongue though my own falt. Probably based on probability results, is the correct word as proofs there are none. They say English is the most precise language to express thought, i still find it clumbsy and insuficient to express what we think is reality.
Irrelevant (no offense); we are not to follow the example of previous skeptics, except in their skill at practicing skepticism.
Why, we accept, or at least listen to, the professionals on this website, as being expert in there fields. Is there input irellavent?
Because there are no discreet units of "thought" (read the book, man). Besides, thought occurs in brains, which are composed of neurons, which are way too big to be distinguished from a rock at the subatomic level.
I will read the book, it is ordered. At anyrate i am interested in one mans opinion as the other, especially if it is not mine. This is why i post. I would hope that the book has lots of scientific probabilty tests.
Who are they?
They were scientific professionals, who tried to find objective evidence if consciousness is, and acts, also outside of biological systems, through probabilty proofs, just the same way that anything is finally accepted, through a book Explaining the unexplained 1982. It includes Walkers theory > http://users.erols.com/wcri/CONSCIOUSNESS.html and a lot of non-partial information, trying to come to a difficult question to answer. I would hope that it is read not to convince anybody of anything but to put forth a very scientific explanation of this thread.
[8)]
Sariaht
Mar23-04, 04:05 PM
Life is communicating bacterias in a vassel among other things.
to radar. impressive link. shows how quantum effects can exist in synaptic transmissions and hence in the development of consciousness.but still the explanation is completely physical . the fact that brain uses quantum effects is hardly surprising as we know that exploitation of quantum phenomenon can greatly increase the effeciency of computers and our brain is nothing but the most powerful parallel processor ever built. but no matter how sophisticated the technology(whether silicon based or carbon based) all processors are still turing machines in essence and rely on algorithms for information processing.nothing metaphysical about this.
to radar. impressive link. shows how quantum effects can exist in synaptic transmissions and hence in the development of consciousness.but still the explanation is completely physical . the fact that brain uses quantum effects is hardly surprising as we know that exploitation of quantum phenomenon can greatly increase the effeciency of computers and our brain is nothing but the most powerful parallel processor ever built. but no matter how sophisticated the technology(whether silicon based or carbon based) all processors are still turing machines in essence and rely on algorithms for information processing.nothing metaphysical about this.
Sage, its Rader not radar. This thread has been dead for ages but since you dug it up. Sounds like you would be interested in AI. Yes quantum effects in the brain, only becase we are investigating the brain. Is not everything only quantum effects, when we examine them? Its all based on QM are you saying that it is not, highly abstract or theoretical. You must believe then that computers can become conscious? I do too, but not for the same reason.
to rader-"Its all based on QM are you saying that it is not, highly abstract or theoretical".
sorry for mispelling your name. having difficulty comprehending what you are saying especially in the sentence above. please clarify a little bit before i hazard a reply.
p.s-i seemed to have given you a curt reply stating what you are saying was unscientific. sorry for that.
What I am saying is that QM is highly abstract and theoretical but has usefull verifiable applications. Here its used to discuss the casual efficacious appeance of consiousness in the brain. I think it can help to solve the unaskable question, how biological processes in the human body somehow know how to do exactly what they have to, instantaneously. There is nothing physical in QM just probabilites or superpositions of states until the V vector collapses. One change in the state of the V vector locally, affects all others non-locally. This is why or maybe how all biological processes are controlled in the entire body automatically. Please pay no attention to my non-linear thinking, it was just a thought for the moment.
i define a phenomenon as physical if it conforms to the laws of physics. in that sense the explanation offered is physical as quantum effects have been considered. it is only when the metaphysical ideas are bandied about to explain something that i begin to see red. otherwise new ideas will always be welcome.
pelastration
Apr18-04, 05:10 AM
i define a phenomenon as physical if it conforms to the laws of physics. in that sense the explanation offered is physical as quantum effects have been considered. it is only when the metaphysical ideas are bandied about to explain something that i begin to see red. otherwise new ideas will always be welcome.
Hi Sage,
Consciousness is overview.
Overview by an individual.
Individual overview is always limited and very narrow.
Overview is based on the data the individual receives:
(1) from his sensors,
(2) from his body,
(3) from his experiences in his past (personal knowledge) stored in the brain,
(4) from learned knowledge stored in the brain (knowledge collected by others),
(5) from genetic information embedded in his complete body (and not just in his brain microtubulines),
(6) from hidden events in his surrounding (i.e. radiation, food),
(7) from his location in spacetime (i.e. effect of gravity, non-local information).
All these effects or parameters influence the perception of what the individual is conscious about. How he sees his "reality".
So try to combine all these parameters in one system that is constant dynamic and where all those elements are constantly interconnected and interacting.
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.