If it exists, it has atoms

[Willum]

So I am just putting this out there as a thought-provoker:

If something exists, it is composed of atoms or is an energy or force: Electromagnetic, Gravitational, Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force and Neutron Degeneracy.

Is there anything that is an exception to this conjecture?

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 30 by William]

 I argue that the Earth is a self aware creative entity consciousness

Well, no. You don't actually argue this. You just sort of keep saying it. If I asked you to actually argue it you'd refer me to a collection of other things you just sort of say in your member notes, with the implication that your earlier musings somehow validate whichever is most recently on offer.

But. If you'd like to actually present a case in real time, or in a head to head, defending the Earth as a self aware creative entity consciousness, that'd be a delight. And a welcome change.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 30 by William]



William: �Consciousness is not physical, and can imagine the non physical as well, and given the right tools, can also create things that never existed except as non physical images. Thus the non-physical consciousness can create physical things based upon non-physical imagery.�

Kill the neurons, and there is no consciousness. Non-physical is indistinguishable from non-existent. Imagery in the brain is physical, and can be detected.

William: �I argue that the Earth is a self aware creative entity consciousness due to patterns which exist and allow for that impression upon the consciousness that I am and the interpretation that I indulge with as being the most likely is based upon what is observable coupled with that which is not directly observable -ie consciousness.�

Actually, you don't argue it, you merely state it, repeatedly and without supporting evidence. And of course, consciousness is observable, since you and I and perhaps a few others have observed it. It is a dynamic pattern of biochemical reactions: No reactions, no consciousness. Just so, we know that lightning is a discharge of electricity. It is not some metaphysical process. If there is no differential charge, there is no discharge, and if there are no functional neurons there is no consciousness. The electrochemical feed-backs of the brain are consciousness.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 20 by Still small]

In information theory, information is the opposite of uncertainty. But information is a pattern of in matter or energy, pixels on a screen, ink on paper, neurotransmitters in the brain activating a pattern of synapses we call memory. There is no information without its physical manifestation. Pattern requires and is not separate from its physical manifestation, just as a ripple is not separate from a river. Thus information is pattern, and the interpretation of information is a matter of pattern matching.

Always having a corresponding physical manifestation does not necessarily mean the physical manifestation is metaphysically privileged. The physical manifestation could alternatively be a necessary consequence of the existence of the information.

In other words, it could mutually be that one always implies the other. Meaning that they are, in fact, the same thing just conceived of in different ways.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 33 by FarWanderer]

Farwanderer: 'Always having a corresponding physical manifestation does not necessarily mean the physical manifestation is metaphysically privileged. The physical manifestation could alternatively be a necessary consequence of the existence of the information.
In other words, it could mutually be that one always implies the other. Meaning that they are, in fact, the same thing just conceived of in different ways."

Sorry, but ink on paper, or pixels on a screen, or the "metaphysical" meanderings of philosophers do not necessarily imply information.

If one wishes to understand origins, one studies physical, observable phenomena. If one wishes to understand how we know what we know, one studies neurology. If one wishes to learn to reason abstractly one studies mathematics, premises, deduction, induction, measurement and statistics.
Arbitrary patterns can convey information to a detector. No detector means no information is transmitted by the signal. Information requires transmitter (always physical), medium (always physical) and detector (always physical). If there is no pattern that can be interpreted by the detector that means no information has been transmitted.
Only if one is too lazy or incompetent to study reality does one descend into the fantasies of "metaphysics", which is simply thought without basis in reality.

[AgnosticBoy]

"Okay, if we accept that computers are aware, how does that translate into having a subjective experience?

Experience is objective phenomenon. "Awareness" depends on feedback that includes the experience of "self" as part of the phenomenon. it is not an all or nothing. There are degrees and levels.

I'm not 100% sure in what sense you're calling experience "objective". Are you speaking in terms of what's being experienced? Or are you equating experience to brain activity?

In the first sense, an objective experience would involve an experience of something in the external world. Everyone can observe or experience it, like seeing the moon. However, there are experiences that only occur in our minds (e.g. dreams) and these aren't objective because only the subject can perceive them.

If you're referring to all experiences being nothing more than brain activity then I also disagree. The phenomena in the physical brain involves the flow of electrons. The phenomena of experience involves "seeing" people, places,, things whether it be of the external world (objective) or only in your mind (subjective). Those are two drastically different phenomena, if they were identical, then they'd share all of the same properties but we know that is not the case.

So again I'm left with asking what subjective experience does a computer have? Any subjective states, like pain or feelings? Any dreams?.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 35 by AgnosticBoy]



AgnosticBoy: �If you're referring to all experiences being nothing more than brain activity then I also disagree. The phenomena in the physical brain involves the flow of electrons. The phenomena of experience involves "seeing" people, places, things whether it be of the external world (objective) or only in your mind (subjective). Those are two drastically different phenomena, if they were identical, then they'd share all of the same properties but we know that is not the case.�

Seeing involves chemical changes in the optic nerves. The nerve transmits an electrochemical signal via the synapses, activating clusters of neurons in the brain. Repeatedly stimulating the same clusters causes those clusters to “learn� that signal. Unused or seldom used synapses tend to deteriorate. Thus we tend to “forget� the signals that are not repeated. When we “remember�, associated clusters activate those same clusters again. If, for instance, seeing another's pain causes you to remember your own pain, you may actually feel that pain though usually not as strongly, because the same nerve clusters are activated. We can map those clusters that are activated with MRI, for instance. It is all physical. It is all electrochemical.
So the “subjective� and “objective� do share the same properties, and in fact are the same phenomena, the activation of clusters of neurons.

You might want to take some time to watch: Human Behavioral Biology

[AgnosticBoy]

Seeing involves chemical changes in the optic nerves. The nerve transmits an electrochemical signal via the synapses, activating clusters of neurons in the brain. Repeatedly stimulating the same clusters causes those clusters to “learn� that signal. Unused or seldom used synapses tend to deteriorate. Thus we tend to “forget� the signals that are not repeated. When we “remember�, associated clusters activate those same clusters again. If, for instance, seeing another's pain causes you to remember your own pain, you may actually feel that pain though usually not as strongly, because the same nerve clusters are activated. We can map those clusters that are activated with MRI, for instance. It is all physical. It is all electrochemical.
So the “subjective� and “objective� do share the same properties, and in fact are the same phenomena, the activation of clusters of neurons.

You might want to take some time to watch: Human Behavioral Biology

[FarWanderer]

If one wishes to understand origins, one studies physical, observable phenomena.

What is a non-physical observable, even in principle?

If one wishes to understand how we know what we know, one studies neurology.

I can't agree with this. First off, there is a semantic problem here: Knowledge is justified true belief, so the understanding of how we know something is presupposed in the notion that we know it in the first place. It has nothing to do with studying the brain.

Secondly, no matter how much you study the brain you will not find experiences there. Well, I suppose you can in the sense that you might be able to reduce love/pain/wetness/etc. to "chemical reactions", but there is no point in it; you are simply translating ideas well-understood in one linguistic medium (experiential description) to another linguistic medium (physical description) in which they are not well understood. That doesn't mean the world as described in experiential terms and world as described in physical terms are metaphysically different.

Arbitrary patterns can convey information to a detector. No detector means no information is transmitted by the signal. Information requires transmitter (always physical), medium (always physical) and detector (always physical). If there is no pattern that can be interpreted by the detector that means no information has been transmitted.

There is actually no way to distinguish a world in which the physical exists independent of information, because all observation necessarily involves a "detector". All the other stuff is just information waiting to be detected or physical stuff waiting to be observed. There is no metaphysical difference, just linguistic.

[AgnosticBoy]

Seeing involves chemical changes in the optic nerves. The nerve transmits an electrochemical signal via the synapses, activating clusters of neurons in the brain. Repeatedly stimulating the same clusters causes those clusters to “learn� that signal. Unused or seldom used synapses tend to deteriorate. Thus we tend to “forget� the signals that are not repeated. When we “remember�, associated clusters activate those same clusters again. If, for instance, seeing another's pain causes you to remember your own pain, you may actually feel that pain though usually not as strongly, because the same nerve clusters are activated. We can map those clusters that are activated with MRI, for instance. It is all physical. It is all electrochemical.

At most, I would say that biology is behind the experience or causes it but it is not the experience itself. You're simply equating cause/effect. It's certainly not an empirical verifiable fact that all pain is objective since there's a subjective or qualitative aspect to it that we can't quantify nor observe. We have to rely on self-report as we do with many other subjective experiences.

So the “subjective� and “objective� do share the same properties, and in fact are the same phenomena, the activation of clusters of neurons.

I respectfully disagree. If I visualize sunset in my mind, I see color, round shaped sun. Neurons are not images, so that therefore constitute as one difference between neurons/chemicals and my mental image.

[William]

[Replying to post 32 by TSGracchus]

Kill the neurons, and there is no consciousness

No tool useful for consciousness to express itself through. The tool is dead.

Non-physical is indistinguishable from non-existent.

What is 'non existent'? That which you cannot detect? How does that which you cannot detect = that which you call 'non existent'?

For example, you claim you cannot detect GOD. In what way does this signify that GOD does not exist?

Imagery in the brain is physical, and can be detected.

Is it detected as imagery?

The voice of your thought is a voice right? It sounds exactly as an audial voice sounds to the ear, in a language you understand yet there is no mouth speaking, or air vibrating or ear hearing. What is speaking and what is hearing that voice? The voice is not physical but is made to appear to the one hearing it, as being physical.

Yet it is not.

Can this audial inner voice of the thought 'in the brain' be detected as audio in the same way that images can be detected as images?

Because if you are saying that the 'detection' is just what is being observed re brain activity associated with the non physical audio and imagery, then that is not the same thing as to claim the actual non physical being detected as physical. Rather it is the detection of the non-physical interacting with the physical which is just as likely being observed.

Actually, you don't argue it, you merely state it, repeatedly and without supporting evidence.

Wrong. I repeatedly use the same evidence you use and repeatedly say that the only difference is in how we each interpret that evidence. Please be conscious of avoiding the use of misrepresentation in relation to what I actually am doing, as such tactic is simply dishonest of those who use it, and disrespectful for that..

And of course, consciousness is observable, since you and I and perhaps a few others have observed it. It is a dynamic pattern of biochemical reactions: No reactions, no consciousness. Just so, we know that lightning is a discharge of electricity. It is not some metaphysical process. If there is no differential charge, there is no discharge, and if there are no functional neurons there is no consciousness. The electrochemical feed-backs of the brain are consciousness.

I have already responded on many occasions to this interpretation as not being the only interpretation which can be developed through these observations.

Discharge of electricity could be interpreted as part of the process of consciousness - in this case the Earth Entity Consciousness, interacting with the physical thing, in this case, the planet.

Indeed, the whole universe reacting as it does can be interpreted to be the direct result of the Universal Consciousness interacting with the thing.

The non-physical interacting with the physical.

Until science can definitively show me this is in fact - NOT the case - there is no need for me to accept your beliefs on the matter as being truth.