What do you think consciousness is?

[Mentat]

Now "How"?

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?

 

[Nereid]

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?

 

[Mentat]

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, 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 ), 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.

 

[Nereid]

Thanks for the welcome Mentat

- - - - -
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!

N (new question): How can you tell if something is performing those functions? How can you tell that the Sun isn't?

 

[Mentat]

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!

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.

 

[FZ+]

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.

 

[Nereid]

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?

 

[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?

 

[Mentat]

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?

 

[Nereid]

multi-dimensional

Examples:

taste: five dimensions - sweet, sour, salty, umami, bitter

sight: four (or five) dimensions - 3 colours (cones; four types in some women) + intensity (rods)

 

[Mentat]

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.

 

[Nereid]

The dimensionality* of consciousness

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]

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]

http://www.duerden.com
click on the fish and look under "articles."

 

[Nereid]

From Be-ing to Be-ness

"Error 404: page not found"

 

[sage]

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.

 

[Nereid]

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?

 

[Rader]

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.

 

[Nereid]

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?

 

[Rader]

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.

 

[Nereid]

Oops, my mistake. I see this is Philosophy, not Science.

 

[Rader]

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.

 

[Mentat]

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.

 

[Mentat]

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.

 

[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 learned 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 experience something). so the pain that i experience 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 experience 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.

 

[Mentat]

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 learned 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 experience 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 experience 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.

 

[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.

 

[Mentat]

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.

 

[Nereid]

Scientific study of non-human consciousness?

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.

 

[Rader]

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.

 

[Mentat]

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.

 

[Mentat]

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.

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).

 

[Rader]

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.

 

[Mentat]

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.

 

[Rader]

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?

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.

 

[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.

 

[Mentat]

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.

 

[Rader]

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.

 

[Rader]

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?

 

[Mentat]

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, anyone 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.

 

[Rader]

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, anyone 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 that's 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).

The problem here is what is the definition of dead. When the machine beeps and the line is as stait as an arrow that's "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 conscious 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.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Rader
Yes that's 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 that's "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 conscious 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.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Mentat
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.

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 let's 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

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 occurred 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.

 

[Rader]

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/

 

[Mentat]

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?[/color]

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.

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 let's 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 occurred 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.

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.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Mentat
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 therefore 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 into 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.

subconscious 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?

 

[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.

 

[Rader]

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 subconscious 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 occurring from the outside world?

 

[Mumeishi]

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.

 

[Mentat]

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.

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 therefore 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 into 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.

subconscious 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?