Consciousness, meaning and value.

[bluethread]

It has been argued that there is no need for belief in something which can not be empirically verified, because science can provide us with all of the answers we need. So, how does science alone explain consciousness, meaning and value?

[Divine Insight]

It has been argued that there is no need for belief in something which can not be empirically verified, because science can provide us with all of the answers we need. So, how does science alone explain consciousness, meaning and value?

Meaning and value are subjective judgements. Therefore science already has those concepts explained.

The only thing left to explain in precise detail is consciousness itself and science is certainly looking into how that can be explained.

In fact, I'm currently working on creating an AI brain for my personal robot. It has occurred to me that before I can even begin to approach the programming I need to create an infinite loop. So obviously the creation of an infinite loop is an integral part of creating "consciousness". It's easy to imagine how an infinite loop could evolve on its own. So that much is already pretty much explained.

Precisely how this infinite loop actually becomes "sentient" is a whole other question. Although I actually have some ideas on how that can be accomplished.

Of course, my ideas are not entirely my own, there are many other people who are working on this concept. And there are many books that can be found on this concept. So it's not a concept that isn't being rigorously investigated.

My personal expectation is that humans will eventually be able to create sentient entities. And when they do, then all of your questions will have been answered by science.

In the meantime the need to propose a "God" to try to explain consciousness is nothing more than a quest for the "God of the Gaps".

Not only this, but if you are going to assume that your "God" entity is itself conscious, then it can hardly be the explanation for consciousness. The explanation for consciousness would still be unanswered until we have answered the question of how God is conscious.

So proposing anything that is "beyond science" as a supposed explanation for consciousness is actually ridiculous unless you can explain how that thing itself is conscious. Otherwise all you've done is avoid having to explain it.

In short, a God that has no explanation is no explanation.

[bluethread]

It has been argued that there is no need for belief in something which can not be empirically verified, because science can provide us with all of the answers we need. So, how does science alone explain consciousness, meaning and value?

Meaning and value are subjective judgements. Therefore science already has those concepts explained.

Don't you mean that you think that science does not have to explain those things? Whether they are subjective or not, they are generally considered necessary. Are you saying that you think they are not necessary? If they are necessary, how does that work scientifically? What is the science behind subjective judgements?

The only thing left to explain in precise detail is consciousness itself and science is certainly looking into how that can be explained.

In fact, I'm currently working on creating an AI brain for my personal robot. It has occurred to me that before I can even begin to approach the programming I need to create an infinite loop. So obviously the creation of an infinite loop is an integral part of creating "consciousness". It's easy to imagine how an infinite loop could evolve on its own. So that much is already pretty much explained.

Precisely how this infinite loop actually becomes "sentient" is a whole other question. Although I actually have some ideas on how that can be accomplished.

Of course, my ideas are not entirely my own, there are many other people who are working on this concept. And there are many books that can be found on this concept. So it's not a concept that isn't being rigorously investigated.

So, you see it as two processes, consciousness and sentience? You then say that consciousness is just a feed back loop. Could you explain how that works?

My personal expectation is that humans will eventually be able to create sentient entities. And when they do, then all of your questions will have been answered by science.

In the meantime the need to propose a "God" to try to explain consciousness is nothing more than a quest for the "God of the Gaps".

So, you believe in the science of the gaps? The things that we do not have scientific explanations for we just believe will be figured out scientifically some time in the future?

Not only this, but if you are going to assume that your "God" entity is itself conscious, then it can hardly be the explanation for consciousness. The explanation for consciousness would still be unanswered until we have answered the question of how God is conscious.

I said nothing about any deities. How is the discussion of deities necessary, if science can explain everything?

So proposing anything that is "beyond science" as a supposed explanation for consciousness is actually ridiculous unless you can explain how that thing itself is conscious. Otherwise all you've done is avoid having to explain it.

I am not supposing or explaining anything. I am asking why one would suppose nothing is "beyond science"

In short, a God that has no explanation is no explanation.

Again, I am not asking about deities. However, using that principle, science without an explanation is no explanation, correct?

[Kenisaw]

It has been argued that there is no need for belief in something which can not be empirically verified, because science can provide us with all of the answers we need. So, how does science alone explain consciousness, meaning and value?

Many people are currently researching consciousness, with many new and exciting discoveries documented all the time. Can science ever completely explain it? I wish I knew the answer to that. It is very possible that we will never fully understand exactly how consciousness arises out of the structure of brains. We certainly cannot fully explain it now. That is a very honest answer to where we currently are in our study of the topic.

Meaning and value are, as DI noted, subjective things. We can explain somewhat why people give things meaning or value, and can certainly demonstrate how different people give different meaning or value to the exact same object or thing (which is how we know it is subjective). There is some study into this, because it ties in with conscious/subcoonscious dynamics, but honestly this isn't really a stand alone research topic because it doesn't appear much can be gained by it. Mostly any checking into meaning and values only occurs because it relates to other more critical research being done.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 3 by bluethread]

I know you were speaking with DI, but I saw something I wanted to discuss with you:

I am not supposing or explaining anything. I am asking why one would suppose nothing is "beyond science"

I think most people (including myself) would tell you that there is no reason to think something besides science is needed to explain anything. So far we haven't needed anything else, so why should we think we will?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 3 by bluethread]

I know you were speaking with DI, but I saw something I wanted to discuss with you:

I am not supposing or explaining anything. I am asking why one would suppose nothing is "beyond science"

I think most people (including myself) would tell you that there is no reason to think something besides science is needed to explain anything. So far we haven't needed anything else, so why should we think we will?

We do not live in a laboratory. Well, at least most of us don't. No one that I know of makes their day to day decisions scientifically. When I get up in the morning I do not hypothesize whether I should urinate before I get dressed or after. Also, I have not chronicled the various times I have done those things in different orders. Finally, if I had, handing that documentation out to five or six friends and asking them to replicate my results would probably result in nothing more than me being labeled a rather odd duck. That is just one of a myriad decisions I make on a daily basis. Yet, I very rarely refer to science in making those decisions. I primarily depend on my belief system. So, if science is the only necessary means of explaining things, why is it we do not consult science much in our daily lives?

[Divine Insight]

Don't you mean that you think that science does not have to explain those things? Whether they are subjective or not, they are generally considered necessary. Are you saying that you think they are not necessary? If they are necessary, how does that work scientifically? What is the science behind subjective judgements?

I'm not sure if pushing this onto "science" is necessary. Simple basic logic provides the answers here.

For example, is food meaningful to you? If so does it not make sense that the reason it's meaningful to you is because without it you would suffer hunger pains, deterioration and even death. So it's only meaningful in terms of what would happen to you if you don't eat.

This same thing applies to everything. In fact life itself is only meaningful to you if you are enjoying it and don't want to die. There actually exist people who are not enjoying life and have no desire to continue to live. In fact, many people have actually committed suicide.

So we subjectively assign meaning and purpose to everything. So these questions have already been answered from a purely secular worldview. No need to imagine any God to have meaning in your life.

The only thing left to explain in precise detail is consciousness itself and science is certainly looking into how that can be explained.

So, you see it as two processes, consciousness and sentience? You then say that consciousness is just a feed back loop. Could you explain how that works?

No I didn't say that consciousness is "just a feedback loop". But I do hold that it would be impossible to create consciousness if you don't at least have a feedback loop to work with. So I suggest that this is a primal component. But a feedback loop alone does not constitute consciousness.

So, you believe in the science of the gaps? The things that we do not have scientific explanations for we just believe will be figured out scientifically some time in the future?

Thus far this has a very fruitful way to discover truth. Until someone can come up with a better method there really isn't any alternative choice is there?

Believing in clearly false God myths has never produced anything truly useful. So I'm certainly not going to turn to what has already been proven to be a dead end.

I said nothing about any deities. How is the discussion of deities necessary, if science can explain everything?

It's not, but you did suggest a need for belief in something which can not be empirically verified. I wonder exactly what you have in mind on a Science and Religion forum?

I am not supposing or explaining anything. I am asking why one would suppose nothing is "beyond science"

I never suggested that nothing is beyond science. What I suggested is that proposing that there is something "beyond science" as a supposed explanation for consciousness is actually ridiculous unless you can explain how that thing that is supposedly beyond science is itself conscious.

In other words there is absolutely no difference at all between the following two statements:

1. Consciousness might be explained by something beyond science.

And

2. I don't know how to explain consciousness.

You may as well confess to #2 because #1 isn't saying anything additional.

In short, a God that has no explanation is no explanation.

Again, I am not asking about deities. However, using that principle, science without an explanation is no explanation, correct?

Just replace the term "God" with "Imaginary ideas of things that are beyond science that have no basis in reality". Again, two things that mean the same thing.

Science does have an explanation. In fact science itself is fully explained. We as humans have defined what science is. Science is a method of inquiry into the world that we perceive. It's very well defined, and very well explained.

The only people who attempt to pretend otherwise are people who would like to believe in things that cannot be known.

If you can't know about these things that are supposedly "beyond science" then what good are they?

Seriously. I would really like to hear your answer concerning this final question.

[benchwarmer]

We do not live in a laboratory.

Depends on how you define laboratory. I can perform experiments anywhere. It doesn't have to be in a special room with a sign over the door that says laboratory.

No one that I know of makes their day to day decisions scientifically.

Really? You don't use past observation and knowledge accumulated by yourself and others when making decisions? Do you just roll dice or something?

When I get up in the morning I do not hypothesize whether I should urinate before I get dressed or after.

No, because you did that experiment numerous times when you were very young. Unless of course you came out of the womb toilet trained. If you ever forget, you will quickly get feedback and observational data that urinating after getting dressed can be a messy affair. Unless you use the technology of zippers of course.

I'm constantly befuddled why some people feel that sciences is some special thing up on a pedestal that only people in lab coats can perform in specially designated spots.

It's simply a codified way of using observation to validate ideas.

By the way, urinating in your clothing has already been peer reviewed and solutions found. You can use the standard zipper as mentioned above, or go all baby/senior mode and use 'absorbent' undergarments. Isn't technology grand?

[Divine Insight]

No one that I know of makes their day to day decisions scientifically.

Really? You don't use past observation and knowledge accumulated by yourself and others when making decisions? Do you just roll dice or something?

Absolutely!

All science does is apply reason to the real world. Anyone who claims they don't need or use the scientific method either has no clue what the scientific method actually is, or they are an extremely unreasonable person who could only be blundering their way through life by making totally arbitrary choices.

It's getting seriously unreal for theists to attempt to continue to argue against science. If they need to argue against science to support their religion, then their religion is in very bad shape indeed.

[bluethread]

I'm not sure if pushing this onto "science" is necessary. Simple basic logic provides the answers here.

For example, is food meaningful to you? If so does it not make sense that the reason it's meaningful to you is because without it you would suffer hunger pains, deterioration and even death. So it's only meaningful in terms of what would happen to you if you don't eat.

This same thing applies to everything. In fact life itself is only meaningful to you if you are enjoying it and don't want to die. There actually exist people who are not enjoying life and have no desire to continue to live. In fact, many people have actually committed suicide.

Then you think that science can not provide us with all of the answers we need, because we have logic? Can logic be empirically verified by science?

No I didn't say that consciousness is "just a feedback loop". But I do hold that it would be impossible to create consciousness if you don't at least have a feedback loop to work with. So I suggest that this is a primal component. But a feedback loop alone does not constitute consciousness.

So, what does constitute consciousness?

The things that we do not have scientific explanations for we just believe will be figured out scientifically some time in the future?

Thus far this has a very fruitful way to discover truth. Until someone can come up with a better method there really isn't any alternative choice is there?

.

So, you think that there is no alternative but to believe that science will someday figure everything out? In the meantime are we to say that consciousness does not exist, because there is no scientific explanation for it?

I said nothing about any deities. How is the discussion of deities necessary, if science can explain everything?

It's not, but you did suggest a need for belief in something which can not be empirically verified. I wonder exactly what you have in mind on a Science and Religion forum?

What I have in mind is, if science can explain everything we need, how does it explain consciousness, meaning and value.

I never suggested that nothing is beyond science. What I suggested is that proposing that there is something "beyond science" as a supposed explanation for consciousness is actually ridiculous unless you can explain how that thing that is supposedly beyond science is itself conscious.

In other words there is absolutely no difference at all between the following two statements:

1. Consciousness might be explained by something beyond science.

And

2. I don't know how to explain consciousness.

You may as well confess to #2 because #1 isn't saying anything additional.

I didn't say you said that. That is the point of the OP. If consciousness is important and science does not explain it, it must be explainable in some other way. That would mean that there is something important that science does not explain.

In short, a God that has no explanation is no explanation.

Again, I am not asking about deities. However, using that principle, science without an explanation is no explanation, correct?

Just replace the term "God" with "Imaginary ideas of things that are beyond science that have no basis in reality". Again, two things that mean the same thing.

No, they do not mean the same thing. There may be alternate explanations that do not involve deities. As I stated, the question does not involve deities, unless you are proposing that as an alternative explanation. The question is whether science provides us with all the answers we need.

Science does have an explanation. In fact science itself is fully explained. We as humans have defined what science is. Science is a method of inquiry into the world that we perceive. It's very well defined, and very well explained.

The only people who attempt to pretend otherwise are people who would like to believe in things that cannot be known.

I am not questioning whether science is explainable. I am asking about whether science explains everything we need to know.

If you can't know about these things that are supposedly "beyond science" then what good are they?

Seriously. I would really like to hear your answer concerning this final question.

So, are you saying that consciousness, meaning and value are not important, because science can not explain them? I think consciousness, meaning and value are very important and I don't know how science can be used to explain them.