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]

Bacteria is one such living thing which exhibits intelligence but has no brain.

If you consider bacteria to be intelligent life, then we already have built "intelligent life" in robots that are far more intelligent than bacteria.

We've already passed that goalpost.

[William]

[Replying to post 49 by DrNoGods]

I'd argue that another word is needed to avoid stretching the definition of intelligence so far that it no longer means what is generally accepted (eg. a dictionary definition).

As I already argued (and you refrained from quoting)

Ah well that is called 'stacking the deck' and is obviously bias toward - not just things with brains, but specifically human beings.

If that is the only definition you will use for intelligence, then it is no wonder you felt the need to ask such a question. Perhaps broaden your perceptions of intelligence and you might begin to see just how intelligent biological processes are.

The problem with the definition above is that it favors secular interpretation above any other.

So I suppose my question was more to ask what you consider to be intelligence, if not an accepted dictionary definition. How is a bacterium "intelligent"? Or for that matter, anything without a brain that can perform the functions associated with reason and analysis, etc.? They lack the fundamental organ that enables these functions.

Precisely. They lack a brain but display the behavior which is recognizably intelligent.

Can intelligence work without a brain. Obviously yes.
Can intelligence work without consciousness?
Obviously no.

Can one honestly objectively view the planet and its ecological system as not 'intelligent'?

I don't think so.

Thus my assertion that the planet itself is a self aware creative entity is not entirely without good reason.

And a counterclaim such as 'but the planet doesn't have a brain' doesn't change that fact.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 52 by William]

If that is the only definition you will use for intelligence, then it is no wonder you felt the need to ask such a question. Perhaps broaden your perceptions of intelligence and you might begin to see just how intelligent biological processes are.

Can intelligence work without a brain. Obviously yes.
Can intelligence work without consciousness?
Obviously no.

I would not call the use of standard dictionary definitions for words "stacking the deck" as the purpose of a dictionary is to provide precise definitions for words so that communication is facilitated.

You appear to have broad definitions for the words intelligence and consciousness that go well beyond the accepted definitions ... so much so that any process exhibiting orderly functions can be described as intelligent (correct?), and thereby also conscious if intelligence cannot work without consciousness.

With custom definitions for these words, you can then draw conclusions that would not be possible using the standard definitions, and that seems much more like "stacking the deck" than using the usual definitions. The biological process of evolution is certainly complex, but calling it "intelligent" sounds like a parallel to "intelligent design" of the theistic type. Or is that exactly what you mean when you call the process intelligent?

[William]

[Replying to post 53 by DrNoGods]

I would not call the use of standard dictionary definitions for words "stacking the deck" as the purpose of a dictionary is to provide precise definitions for words so that communication is facilitated.

This doesn't of course negate what I said about human definitions and how they reflect bias, and thus how this bias of definition affects self imagery.

Many lifeforms (including bacteria) communicate with each other and there is no need for dictionaries in order for them to achieve this. Dictionaries are like encoded vibrations captured in print and vulnerable to dishonest human manipulation.

One is of course free to focus on the interpretation dictionaries offer rather than having to admit that intelligence is easy enough to see in these things otherwise excluded from dictionary definition.

You appear to have broad definitions for the words intelligence and consciousness that go well beyond the accepted definitions ...

'Accepted definitions' can be included in this case, as argument from popularity.

It matters not that even if the majority of the population agree to the interpretation that only objects with brains can exhibit intelligence. The truth is different from that, and obviously so.

...so much so that any process exhibiting orderly functions can be described as intelligent (correct?), and thereby also conscious if intelligence cannot work without consciousness.

Precisely. When one accepts the reality one is thus enabled to understand it in that way and consequently broaden one's understanding and appreciation for this being the reality.

Until then, one is bound by their choice to accept the lesser.

With custom definitions for these words, you can then draw conclusions that would not be possible using the standard definitions, and that seems much more like "stacking the deck" than using the usual definitions.

Why is it that you first argue for ' the accepted definitions' and then imply that the true definition through simple observation has been 'customized'?

Are you unable to consider it is far more likely I am speaking truth here rather than customizing to suit? Is it not the case that you are unable to agree that bacteria are intelligent simple because 'the dictionary tells us so'? Which is more likely? The dictionary is customized or that nature is customized?

The biological process of evolution is certainly complex, but calling it "intelligent" sounds like a parallel to "intelligent design" of the theistic type.

Is that really the main reason you protest then? I would say that the human ego is the reason why the dictionary leans heavily toward defining intelligence as only being displayed through beings with brains.

Or is that exactly what you mean when you call the process intelligent?

I am calling it intelligent because that is what it is. That this also implies intelligent design is just something one has to deal with as consequence.

[bluethread]

Can intelligence work without a brain. Obviously yes.
Can intelligence work without consciousness?
Obviously no.

Can one honestly objectively view the planet and its ecological system as not 'intelligent'?

I don't think so.

Thus my assertion that the planet itself is a self aware creative entity is not entirely without good reason.

Before we get too far afield here, it appears the we have conflation going on here. First, the brain is not a unitary organ. In fact, it makes up a minority of the nervious system. Like the rest of the nervous system, it is a combination of specialized "regions" that interact in symbiotic relationships. Contiousness is generally not thought to exist in many of these areas in isolation. Since the regions of the brain are in close physical proximity, this latter is often not recognized. A good way to understand it is to look at nervous organs that are outside the cranium. The heart, for example, has a neural network that permits it to act independently of the brain, but it is not considered conscious. Though it does communicate in a symbiotic manner with another organ in the cranium, it's processes are relatively simplistic. All it does is contract in a pattern when bathed in nutrients. It is the same with the various "regions" of the brain. They are specialized and some can even be removed, while actions related to consciousness and attestations of consciousness remain. So, referring to rudimentary stimulius response as consciousness is of little, if any, help in determining what consciousness actually is.

Given that, the question is whether consciousness is a function of just one of these regions, is it the result of interaction between two ro more of these regions, or is it something else? Then, even if science can answer that question, can it then move on to explain what that function actually is and how it actually works?

Could it be that this is what gives support to subjectivism. Since, surgery on the nervous system in general, and the brain specifically, requires patient interaction, doesn't that indicate that consiousness is not universally the same, but is inherently subjective and can only be communicated in the abstract? More simply, is empathy just acknowledgment of the existance of feeling and not the same feelings? Could it be that consciouness can not be scientifically discribed, because it is not a singular process, but like pain tolerance, different from person to person?

[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?

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.

https://utw10426.utweb.utexas.edu/Topic ... /Text.html
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-exa ... ryday-life

People use the scientific method all day, every day. Most don't realize they are doing it, but they are.

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.

Ever take different routes to the same place? Does that variation depend on the time of day, or if it's a weekday or a weekend? We all do stuff like that. You've conducted tests to see if an idea is valid or not, you just didn't realize you were doing that.

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?

Replicating the results would only matter if you were trying to reach a scientific theory level of agreement. You aren't. You are just trying to get from point A to point B efficiently, for yourself. Or you are trying to figure out if that light bulb is burned out or not. Still the scientific method, just not at the level of creating a scientific theory...

[Kenisaw]

Can intelligence work without a brain. Obviously yes.
Can intelligence work without consciousness?
Obviously no.

Can one honestly objectively view the planet and its ecological system as not 'intelligent'?

I don't think so.

Thus my assertion that the planet itself is a self aware creative entity is not entirely without good reason.

Before we get too far afield here, it appears the we have conflation going on here. First, the brain is not a unitary organ. In fact, it makes up a minority of the nervious system. Like the rest of the nervous system, it is a combination of specialized "regions" that interact in symbiotic relationships. Contiousness is generally not thought to exist in many of these areas in isolation. Since the regions of the brain are in close physical proximity, this latter is often not recognized. A good way to understand it is to look at nervous organs that are outside the cranium. The heart, for example, has a neural network that permits it to act independently of the brain, but it is not considered conscious. Though it does communicate in a symbiotic manner with another organ in the cranium, it's processes are relatively simplistic. All it does is contract in a pattern when bathed in nutrients. It is the same with the various "regions" of the brain. They are specialized and some can even be removed, while actions related to consciousness and attestations of consciousness remain. So, referring to rudimentary stimulius response as consciousness is of little, if any, help in determining what consciousness actually is.

I'd disagree with your last sentence here. When you step on something sharp with your bare foot, it is your spinal column (and not your brain) that orders the foot to withdraw in the opposite direction. Your brain registers the pain, but the dorsal horn (in your spine) has already ordered an action to avoid additional pain.

Why does this matter? Because the neurons in the dorsal horn are not as complex as the ones in your brain, but can do a limited version of what the neurons in your brain do. Studying rudimentary stimulus responses is quite useful in understanding how neurons work in general, and how the interaction with other neurons give's rise to various abilities.

Given that, the question is whether consciousness is a function of just one of these regions, is it the result of interaction between two or more of these regions, or is it something else? Then, even if science can answer that question, can it then move on to explain what that function actually is and how it actually works?

No one knows if science can or will be able to do that. People are currently working on it. I find no reason to think that science CAN'T eventually do that, however.

Could it be that this is what gives support to subjectivism. Since, surgery on the nervous system in general, and the brain specifically, requires patient interaction, doesn't that indicate that consiousness is not universally the same, but is inherently subjective and can only be communicated in the abstract? More simply, is empathy just acknowledgment of the existance of feeling and not the same feelings? Could it be that consciouness can not be scientifically discribed, because it is not a singular process, but like pain tolerance, different from person to person?

This question really goes back to a conversation on nurture verses nature. It seems pretty accurate at this point in the study of the mind that part of how we view things is genetic, and part of it is based on our experiences. The fact that humans don't act exactly the same from person to person is well understood in the field of psychology.

Subjectivism, in other words, is a result of the differences that conscious beings experience and the differences in their genetics. But at a base level, are they not all conscious? I think it's safe to say yes to that. Just because those conscious minds do not express themselves identically doesn't mean that consciousness is not a base starting point that cannot be scientifically described. I don't see how subjectivism makes scientific investigation of consciousness impossible...

[William]

Can intelligence work without a brain. Obviously yes.
Can intelligence work without consciousness?
Obviously no.

Can one honestly objectively view the planet and its ecological system as not 'intelligent'?

I don't think so.

Thus my assertion that the planet itself is a self aware creative entity is not entirely without good reason.

Before we get too far afield here, it appears the we have conflation going on here. First, the brain is not a unitary organ. In fact, it makes up a minority of the nervious system. Like the rest of the nervous system, it is a combination of specialized "regions" that interact in symbiotic relationships. Contiousness is generally not thought to exist in many of these areas in isolation. Since the regions of the brain are in close physical proximity, this latter is often not recognized. A good way to understand it is to look at nervous organs that are outside the cranium. The heart, for example, has a neural network that permits it to act independently of the brain, but it is not considered conscious.

Specifically I myself am arguing that consciousness isn't dependent on existing without a brain. Consciousness is simply defined as an ability to be aware of self, even that this awareness may not be as acute in some as in others. Specifically "I am that I am" is a statement of consciousness, but even if consciousness has no means in which to state such, it has other ways of making this obvious.
My contention is that consciousness pervades all things, and that is 'GOD'.

Though it does communicate in a symbiotic manner with another organ in the cranium, it's processes are relatively simplistic. All it does is contract in a pattern when bathed in nutrients. It is the same with the various "regions" of the brain. They are specialized and some can even be removed, while actions related to consciousness and attestations of consciousness remain. So, referring to rudimentary stimulius response as consciousness is of little, if any, help in determining what consciousness actually is.

It is relatively simply to determine what consciousness actually is. The problem isn't that, but in assigning it as 'different' depending upon what it is interacting with/through.
Consciousness defines itself. "I am that I am" and if one can grasp the rudimentary foundation of that concept, one can understand that it is the fabric upon that which all and every reality is derived.
This is why I often point out the necessity of 'knowing thyself' as it were. To understand the quintessence of consciousness, striped of all 'things'. That is GOD and that is from where we derive and what we ultimately are.

The 'living' can be observed in what we refer to as 'life' and the common denominator is intelligence and therefore - consciousness.
It is easy enough to attribute intelligence and consciousness to mammals and other things with brains, but difficult for many to admit that the whole planet is a self aware creative entity, and that biological evolution is the evidence for this being the case.

Given that, the question is whether consciousness is a function of just one of these regions, is it the result of interaction between two ro more of these regions, or is it something else? Then, even if science can answer that question, can it then move on to explain what that function actually is and how it actually works?

Science is far too busy working from the inside out - as that is all it can really do.
The notion/belief that consciousness derives from brains is one such sign of this inside out analysis. In relation to the heart, there are studies being done related to 'heart consciousness' as if somehow the brain consciousness is different from the heart consciousness, but it does not matter how thinly one slices up consciousness, it always retains the essence of the complete image of its self no matter how many times it is reduced in size, or what container it expresses through.

Could it be that this is what gives support to subjectivism. Since, surgery on the nervous system in general, and the brain specifically, requires patient interaction, doesn't that indicate that consiousness is not universally the same, but is inherently subjective and can only be communicated in the abstract?

No. This is because every thing in the universe is unique, so it will give the impression that it is thus not universally 'the same' due to whatever it is expressing through. This is what has lead to the idea of dualism.
Consciousness can ever only appreciate the subjective experience of itself, no matter the form being occupied.

More simply, is empathy just acknowledgment of the existance of feeling and not the same feelings? Could it be that consciouness can not be scientifically discribed, because it is not a singular process, but like pain tolerance, different from person to person?

I don't think consciousness is different from form to form - and what is a 'person' anyway? What you are speaking to here is not so much consciousness as in how consciousness expresses through forms. Because each individual is unique in their subjective situation, they express that uniqueness through their form and into the greater environment.

It is not consciousness itself which therefore has the final say as to what it is in relation to the human experience. So many other things combine to usurp and undermine that ability and right. The nature of this reality allows for consciousness to lose itself - to be lost to itself - and much of the evidence re this can be seen in the generic manner in which humans choose to express their collective experience. Self identification is integral to consciousness, so getting it wrong can be catastrophic, and not only in relation to this side of death.

[bluethread]

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.

https://utw10426.utweb.utexas.edu/Topic ... /Text.html
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-exa ... ryday-life

People use the scientific method all day, every day. Most don't realize they are doing it, but they are.

That is a rather simplistic characterization of the scientific method. The scientific method is a well defined series of steps. Stumbling through life does not count. Science requires a controlled environment. People do not live in a environments controlled for experimentation. Science requires gathering information in an unbiased fashion. Not only do we not really control our environments for experimentation, we limit what we observe, excluding nearly everything around us, choosing to focus on a minute number of things at a time. It also requires an unbiased examination of the evidence. We usually select what we do focus on to favor a preferred goal. Also, most goals are short lived, or are small parts of greater goals. They are fluid and not sustained long enough to establish things as facts, at least as science would require. Finally, we do retain some memory of our daily activities, and we have casual discussions among ourselves about them. However, that can hardly be considered detained documentation and per reviewed replication. In short, we might engage in scientific enquiry from time to time, but we generally go through life without seriously disciplining our live to the purpose of scientifically verifying things.

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.

Ever take different routes to the same place? Does that variation depend on the time of day, or if it's a weekday or a weekend? We all do stuff like that. You've conducted tests to see if an idea is valid or not, you just didn't realize you were doing that.

That is not science. That is simple trial and error in a dynamic environment. We do not always note the significant differences.

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?

Replicating the results would only matter if you were trying to reach a scientific theory level of agreement. You aren't. You are just trying to get from point A to point B efficiently, for yourself. Or you are trying to figure out if that light bulb is burned out or not. Still the scientific method, just not at the level of creating a scientific theory...

That is what I am saying. Trial and error, trying common methods and mulling things over in one's mind is not science, especially the way people on this forum use it.

[William]

[Replying to post 51 by Divine Insight]

If you consider bacteria to be intelligent life, then we already have built "intelligent life" in robots that are far more intelligent than bacteria.

We've already passed that goalpost.

My argument is specific to consciousness as the 'life' aspect and intelligence manifesting through biological forms which have no brains.