Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

God is found within beauty or, more importantly, harmony

Page 3 of 6 [ 94 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 Nov 2010, 8:54 am

91 wrote:
Sand wrote:
91 wrote:
Sand wrote:
If you believe a mind, any mind, is not a mechanism for high level interaction as opposed to a basic force like electromagnetic attraction or repulsion then we cannot converse sensibly.


The consciousness may exist as a basic force. I however, do not know enough on the subject to draw any sort of conclusion. You also seem to be blurring the distinction between mind and consciousness. One may be the product of the other (I have seen it argued either way) but there is no reason for suggesting that they must be conceptually the same thing. The p-zombie concept essentially seeks disproves that contention, by suggesting that a mind may objectively exist without requiring an internal subjective viewpoint.


Your assumption that consciousness can exist without a very solid hunk of meat behind it is pure unfounded speculation in the realm of spooks and other nonsense.


Since when did I assume that? Once again you put words in my mouth. I simply stated it was theoretically possible and I cited two quite prominent thinkers who have argued it. If you wish to argue that this contention is impossible; you need to demonstrate this. Otherwise you are just claiming to know more about the subject than the Centre for Consciousness at the Australian National University. There are critical arguments on the matter but for the most part the p-zombie concept remains useful for defining the hard problem of Consciousness .

My personal position in the debate is to wait for something more certain to emerge. Until then one cannot really make their mind up on the subject.


Since there has never been an example of consciousness without a very solid brain behind it I am not particularly impressed with any Australian center. And I am not interested in amorphous authorities on the matter.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

25 Nov 2010, 9:21 am

JNathanK wrote:
How is it any more of a fantasy for me to say that the electro-magnetic activity of the brain, that science has said is linked to consciousness. has conscious properties intrinsically apart of it, any more than it is to say that matter has gravitational properties?

Science hasn't linked electro-magnetic activity to consciousness in any strong manner.

Secondly, you OBJECTED TO the notion that matter just has gravitational properties, but rather required something beyond that.

Thirdly, all matter has been shown to have gravity. Not all electro-magnetic activity has been shown to be conscious. At best, we only believe that the neural networks of the brain, which are not the strongest electro-magnetic activities, have consciousness. The problem here is that if something corresponds to X, but not to Y, we don't tend to believe that Y is the source, but rather that X is. I believe that the brain and its pathways is the source of consciousness, not electrons.

Quote:
You're not just an advanced machine taking in information and outputting it, but you are reading what I've typed to you on the screen, and these black symbols on this white background are being processed by your brain and filtered through your subconscious and invoking certain emotions and reactions based off of prior experiences stored in your memories that you experience as an entity. In other worlds, you're not a mere set of processes, but you also have awareness. That's what I mean by consciousness. Its the fact that something is aware at all and not just pure process.

Honestly, I think that consciousness just reduces to a set of very complex processes. I think that the evidence is sufficient that we are machines to allow us to ease off of the intuitions that we are not.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

25 Nov 2010, 9:23 am

91 wrote:
If you contend that it takes high level interactions in order for consciousness to occur, how do you deal with the present research by Stuart Hameroff that shows one does not need to have high level interactions in order to have consciousness? For example, one cannot prove that memory, planning and motor skills comprise consciousness, since the brain can do all these things without the need for conscious thought.

Emergent usually means that a combination is necessary.

That being said, what we have shown is that conscious awareness can be removed through damage to the brain at specific locations, such as with the phenomenon of blindsight. People with blindsight are receiving information, but are not conscious of the information they receive, and all that has happened is a bit of brain damage.



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

25 Nov 2010, 9:25 am

Sand wrote:
Since there has never been an example of consciousness without a very solid brain behind it I am not particularly impressed with any Australian center. And I am not interested in amorphous authorities on the matter.


This is a logical fallacy. Like the drunk who assumes his lost keys must be under the street light; since that is where the light is shinning. Yes, your right, you must know more than all those pesky scientists. :roll: :roll:


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

25 Nov 2010, 9:29 am

91 wrote:
Sand wrote:
Since there has never been an example of consciousness without a very solid brain behind it I am not particularly impressed with any Australian center. And I am not interested in amorphous authorities on the matter.


This is a logical fallacy. Like the drunk who assumes his lost keys must be under the street light; since that is where the light is shinning. Yes, your right, you must know more than all those pesky scientists. :roll: :roll:

It must be recognized that "science" isn't this amorphous blob. There are varying views within the philosophical literature on consciousness, whether it is Cartesian Dualism, Property Dualism, or even Reductive Materialism.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

25 Nov 2010, 9:31 am

"Since there has never been an example of consciousness without a very solid brain behind it I am not particularly impressed with any Australian center. And I am not interested in amorphous authorities on the matter."

"Since seamen who have sailed for days have never seen anything to the west but water to the horizon, I am not particularly impressed by "thinkers" who suggest there could be land out there."

Ah, Horatio, Horatio.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 Nov 2010, 9:38 am

Philologos wrote:
"Since there has never been an example of consciousness without a very solid brain behind it I am not particularly impressed with any Australian center. And I am not interested in amorphous authorities on the matter."

"Since seamen who have sailed for days have never seen anything to the west but water to the horizon, I am not particularly impressed by "thinkers" who suggest there could be land out there."

Ah, Horatio, Horatio.


We deal with what we know, not with what we wish. The work of Oliver Sacks who interacts with real minds, not philosophical phantoms, presents clear indication that the consciousness is a phenomena of the brain and when the brain is modified in various ways the mind and the consciousness is extremely responsive.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

25 Nov 2010, 11:03 am

Sand wrote:

We deal with what we know, not with what we wish. The work of Oliver Sacks who interacts with real minds, not philosophical phantoms, presents clear indication that the consciousness is a phenomena of the brain and when the brain is modified in various ways the mind and the consciousness is extremely responsive.


If it were only so. Many people do not distinguish what they "know" from the nonsense they have acquired from those around them.

ruveyn



JNathanK
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,177

25 Nov 2010, 2:18 pm

Sand wrote:

The variation in musical as well as food taste across various cultures is immense. You are searching for genetic similarities and that calls for experiment, not conjecture.


Yah, I noted the variation, but I also was noting the similarity. Read my link. There's been scientific studies that have shown that musical compositions invoke the same emotional response across people and across cultures. All you have to do is look them up for yourself. A Hindi isn't going to think Moonlight Sonata is a happy song, no more than a Californian.



JNathanK
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,177

25 Nov 2010, 2:26 pm

Sand wrote:
91 wrote:
Sand wrote:
91 wrote:
Sand wrote:
If you believe a mind, any mind, is not a mechanism for high level interaction as opposed to a basic force like electromagnetic attraction or repulsion then we cannot converse sensibly.


The consciousness may exist as a basic force. I however, do not know enough on the subject to draw any sort of conclusion. You also seem to be blurring the distinction between mind and consciousness. One may be the product of the other (I have seen it argued either way) but there is no reason for suggesting that they must be conceptually the same thing. The p-zombie concept essentially seeks disproves that contention, by suggesting that a mind may objectively exist without requiring an internal subjective viewpoint.


Your assumption that consciousness can exist without a very solid hunk of meat behind it is pure unfounded speculation in the realm of spooks and other nonsense.


Since when did I assume that? Once again you put words in my mouth. I simply stated it was theoretically possible and I cited two quite prominent thinkers who have argued it. If you wish to argue that this contention is impossible; you need to demonstrate this. Otherwise you are just claiming to know more about the subject than the Centre for Consciousness at the Australian National University. There are critical arguments on the matter but for the most part the p-zombie concept remains useful for defining the hard problem of Consciousness .

My personal position in the debate is to wait for something more certain to emerge. Until then one cannot really make their mind up on the subject.


Since there has never been an example of consciousness without a very solid brain behind it I am not particularly impressed with any Australian center. And I am not interested in amorphous authorities on the matter.
Well, how do you know other people are conscious except not through your own experience as being a conscious entity. Acknowledging the fact other people have what you have and that they aren't just mechanistic zombies is an extrapolation. ...and I'm extrapolating further that consciousness is inherent in electrons(, just as it also has ionic bonding properties or orbital properties. ). What I'm going off of is that the electromagnetism of the brain has an intrinsic, conscious property in it, as evidenced by my own awareness, and what activity neuro-science has found to be associated with the functions of thought.



JNathanK
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,177

25 Nov 2010, 2:32 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Sand wrote:

We deal with what we know, not with what we wish. The work of Oliver Sacks who interacts with real minds, not philosophical phantoms, presents clear indication that the consciousness is a phenomena of the brain and when the brain is modified in various ways the mind and the consciousness is extremely responsive.


If it were only so. Many people do not distinguish what they "know" from the nonsense they have acquired from those around them.

ruveyn


This isn't nonsense that I've acquired from t hose around me. I'm working off of what I know, and that's that my mind is made up of electromagnetism and that I'm also conscious, telling me there's very good evidence that electromagnetism has a conscious basis to it. Explain to me how consciousness can arise from matter in completely mechanistic terms if electrons don't have some conscious property to them?



JNathanK
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,177

25 Nov 2010, 2:35 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
91 wrote:
If you contend that it takes high level interactions in order for consciousness to occur, how do you deal with the present research by Stuart Hameroff that shows one does not need to have high level interactions in order to have consciousness? For example, one cannot prove that memory, planning and motor skills comprise consciousness, since the brain can do all these things without the need for conscious thought.

Emergent usually means that a combination is necessary.

That being said, what we have shown is that conscious awareness can be removed through damage to the brain at specific locations, such as with the phenomenon of blindsight. People with blindsight are receiving information, but are not conscious of the information they receive, and all that has happened is a bit of brain damage.


That doesn't do anything to prove that electrons have no conscious component. The fact that electrons are no longer active in the missing part of the brain that would normally channel electrons through synaptic connections of the neurons to create a symbolic reflection of the external world can still be taken to be evidence that electrons have conscious properties to them.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 Nov 2010, 2:39 pm

JNathanK wrote:
Sand wrote:
91 wrote:
Sand wrote:
91 wrote:
Sand wrote:
If you believe a mind, any mind, is not a mechanism for high level interaction as opposed to a basic force like electromagnetic attraction or repulsion then we cannot converse sensibly.


The consciousness may exist as a basic force. I however, do not know enough on the subject to draw any sort of conclusion. You also seem to be blurring the distinction between mind and consciousness. One may be the product of the other (I have seen it argued either way) but there is no reason for suggesting that they must be conceptually the same thing. The p-zombie concept essentially seeks disproves that contention, by suggesting that a mind may objectively exist without requiring an internal subjective viewpoint.


Your assumption that consciousness can exist without a very solid hunk of meat behind it is pure unfounded speculation in the realm of spooks and other nonsense.


Since when did I assume that? Once again you put words in my mouth. I simply stated it was theoretically possible and I cited two quite prominent thinkers who have argued it. If you wish to argue that this contention is impossible; you need to demonstrate this. Otherwise you are just claiming to know more about the subject than the Centre for Consciousness at the Australian National University. There are critical arguments on the matter but for the most part the p-zombie concept remains useful for defining the hard problem of Consciousness .

My personal position in the debate is to wait for something more certain to emerge. Until then one cannot really make their mind up on the subject.


Since there has never been an example of consciousness without a very solid brain behind it I am not particularly impressed with any Australian center. And I am not interested in amorphous authorities on the matter.
Well, how do you know other people are conscious except not through your own experience as being a conscious entity. Acknowledging the fact other people have what you have and that they aren't just mechanistic zombies is an extrapolation. ...and I'm extrapolating further that consciousness is inherent in electrons(, just as it also has ionic bonding properties or orbital properties. ). What I'm going off of is that the electromagnetism of the brain has an intrinsic, conscious property in it, as evidenced by my own awareness, and what activity neuro-science has found to be associated with the functions of thought.


There are no absolute facts. We live in a world of probabilities and try to estimate the probability of each estimation of truth to use it practically. The probability that I am the only conscious being and all others are zombies is about as close to zero as things get. I don't think it has any worthwhile consideration. On that basis thought is a function of the interaction of neurons and thought without the neurons has zero value insofar as other living creatures are concerned. The quality of thought is something else.



JNathanK
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,177

25 Nov 2010, 2:55 pm

Sand wrote:

There are no absolute facts. We live in a world of probabilities and try to estimate the probability of each estimation of truth to use it practically. The probability that I am the only conscious being and all others are zombies is about as close to zero as things get. I don't think it has any worthwhile consideration. On that basis thought is a function of the interaction of neurons and thought without the neurons has zero value insofar as other living creatures are concerned. The quality of thought is something else.
Well, I know, for a fact, that I'm conscious right now. That's proof to me that some things can be tangibly proven, at least to myself through personal experience. You only know you're conscious through personal experience. Do you know the existence of your own daily consciousness is an absolute fact, or do you reserve a possibility that your consciousness doesn't exist or that what is known as a cube to English speaking geometrists doesn't have six sides to it or that what's known as gravity doesn't pull you down tot he earth? Thought is a process that is very much apart of human consciousness, but its mainly just a process as for as scientific dogma is concerned. The fact that experience is attached to thoughts seems to go against the materialist model that would suppose that everything has a mechanistic cause. The only way consciousness makes sense is that all electrons, at least, or the matter composing neurons, in some way, possess consciousness as a property.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

25 Nov 2010, 5:55 pm

JNathanK wrote:
That doesn't do anything to prove that electrons have no conscious component. The fact that electrons are no longer active in the missing part of the brain that would normally channel electrons through synaptic connections of the neurons to create a symbolic reflection of the external world can still be taken to be evidence that electrons have conscious properties to them.

Well, no, nothing can prove that electrons have no conscious component. The idea they do isn't falsifiable. Really, my objection is that it does not make sense.

That being said, electrons are STILL active in the rest of the brain. Even further, brains with LESS electrons are still capable of this kind of task. The problem with your idea really still goes back to the ad hocness of it. You're making stuff up.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 Nov 2010, 7:02 pm

JNathanK wrote:
Sand wrote:

There are no absolute facts. We live in a world of probabilities and try to estimate the probability of each estimation of truth to use it practically. The probability that I am the only conscious being and all others are zombies is about as close to zero as things get. I don't think it has any worthwhile consideration. On that basis thought is a function of the interaction of neurons and thought without the neurons has zero value insofar as other living creatures are concerned. The quality of thought is something else.
Well, I know, for a fact, that I'm conscious right now. That's proof to me that some things can be tangibly proven, at least to myself through personal experience. You only know you're conscious through personal experience. Do you know the existence of your own daily consciousness is an absolute fact, or do you reserve a possibility that your consciousness doesn't exist or that what is known as a cube to English speaking geometrists doesn't have six sides to it or that what's known as gravity doesn't pull you down tot he earth? Thought is a process that is very much apart of human consciousness, but its mainly just a process as for as scientific dogma is concerned. The fact that experience is attached to thoughts seems to go against the materialist model that would suppose that everything has a mechanistic cause. The only way consciousness makes sense is that all electrons, at least, or the matter composing neurons, in some way, possess consciousness as a property.


It seems that what makes sense to you doesn't make sense to me plus quite a few others. Your consciousness is actually a rather small part of your brain activity as most of the dynamics is well hidden from what you are aware of. Many of the effects of conscious activity such as information retrieval and associative integration are very vital but pretty much beneath your awareness. Why you picked on electrons instead of some other fundamental particle is one of the more comic of your aberrations.