What is ' consciousness ' ?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Thomas123
Sage
Posts: 774
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:04 am
Has thanked: 122 times
Been thanked: 37 times

What is ' consciousness ' ?

Post #1

Post by Thomas123 »

This word appears to be at the centre of many discussions on this forum. It also appears to mean different things to different people and, therein lies the root of our miscommunication. What range and definement do you attribute to, ' consciousness ' ?

Is there an external consciousness in the world?. Can I tune into a shared consciousness. I am listening to Prime Minister's Question Time, ....is Boris tuned into a universal human consciousness as he delivers his address. Is his brain working ,simultaneously and in tandem with my own consciousness and with that of others?

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?

Post #201

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Inquirer in post #200]
I by and large agree, as my posts indicate western sciences regard consciousness as something that can be reduced to unconscious matter and laws, they regard matter, laws, determinism as the basis for all that we observe and I think that is a terrible mistake.
Would you rather science assume the existence of the supernatural, or gods, or similar agents and just give up on trying to learn how things work? Why bother studying a biological basis for consciousness or anything else not yet fully understood when a lazy way out is there for the taking that requires no work or effort? To date, science has a brilliant track record of working out materialistic explanations for countless natural phenomena, and complicated problems like consciousness should not be given up on because it is complicated. Just the opposite.
"I created an artificial mind and tested it, it should have thought about algebra but it did not, it thought about trees. Clearly it does not have free will because if it did have it would have thought as we predicted it would think".
Surely you appreciate that science has not solved all problems that exist in the universe. If we don't understand how consciousness works at a molecular level how on earth could anyone be expected to build an artificial mind and expect it to work like a real mind? This example illustrates what a failed science experiment may look like, but it isn't relevant to consciousness because that isn't understood well enough to build a working model. Resorting to supernatural or similar agents because we don't understand something doesn't help in understanding it.
I've pointed this out several times here but it seems to fall on deaf ears, at least you have an awareness of how profound this is.
It hasn't fallen on deaf ears ... just several people don't buy your arguments for the reasons stated many times over in these threads. There's no reason to believe consciousness won't be figured out one day, and have a purely materialistic explanation that is simply beyond our current understanding. You can't rule that out ... it isn't "impossible" by any of the arguments you've made.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Inquirer
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1012
Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?

Post #202

Post by Inquirer »

DrNoGods wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:46 pm [Replying to Inquirer in post #200]
I by and large agree, as my posts indicate western sciences regard consciousness as something that can be reduced to unconscious matter and laws, they regard matter, laws, determinism as the basis for all that we observe and I think that is a terrible mistake.
Would you rather science assume the existence of the supernatural, or gods, or similar agents and just give up on trying to learn how things work?
I don't have any criticisms of the scientific method or its assumptions but I am aware of its epistemological limitations, many are not.
DrNoGods wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:46 pm Why bother studying a biological basis for consciousness or anything else not yet fully understood when a lazy way out is there for the taking that requires no work or effort? To date, science has a brilliant track record of working out materialistic explanations for countless natural phenomena, and complicated problems like consciousness should not be given up on because it is complicated. Just the opposite.
On the contrary, as this and other threads show, there is considerable effort involved! I'm not here to shake your faith in the scientific method, but you should accept that your argument above is one of faith. You have faith in science "because" of a "track record" no other reason. Your argument in no way proves that consciousness has a material, causal explanation you believe it does and that's fine but do not present a belief as an objective established fact.
DrNoGods wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:46 pm
"I created an artificial mind and tested it, it should have thought about algebra but it did not, it thought about trees. Clearly it does not have free will because if it did have it would have thought as we predicted it would think".
Surely you appreciate that science has not solved all problems that exist in the universe.
Yes thank you, I'm quite aware of that, a case in point being science has not explained why science is possible.
DrNoGods wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:46 pm If we don't understand how consciousness works at a molecular level how on earth could anyone be expected to build an artificial mind and expect it to work like a real mind?
The point is that the very claim that it has a "molecular level" explanation leads to contradictions, my example is a proof by contradiction that a theory or free will is impossible because it cannot be tested because the behavior of a system with free will cannot be predicted and science progresses by enabling us to make predictions. If we cannot reliably predict outcomes then we cannot claim to understand can we? If I had some theory for predicting the weather in my yard and time after time after time I got it wrong, would you trust my theory?

A theory of free will though must be untestable because if we can predict what a system does reliably then obviously that system does not possess free will does it?

If we did design a system that we regarded as truly conscious and we correctly predicted what answer it gave to every question we asked it, over and over, without fail - what would that tell us? Would that prove it was conscious?

The problem here is obvious (to some) and that is there are epistemological problems that are outside the scope of the scientific method and those who believe in scientism have a really tough time dealing with that.
DrNoGods wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:46 pm This example illustrates what a failed science experiment may look like, but it isn't relevant to consciousness because that isn't understood well enough to build a working model. Resorting to supernatural or similar agents because we don't understand something doesn't help in understanding it.
No, the example is a reasoned argument that I offer as a proof by contradiction that there can be no free will or consciousness if it is based on laws and causality and mechanistic processes. Why not critique the reasoning or premises rather than going around in circles chasing your tail?
DrNoGods wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:46 pm
I've pointed this out several times here but it seems to fall on deaf ears, at least you have an awareness of how profound this is.
It hasn't fallen on deaf ears ... just several people don't buy your arguments for the reasons stated many times over in these threads.
Which argument don't you "buy"? Tell me which of these premises you don't buy please:

1. Scientific theories enable us to make predictions.
2. We test theories by devising experiments that lead to certain predictions.
3. We compare the actual measured outcomes with those predicted.
4. We reject a theory that generates predictions that differ from what is measured.

DrNoGods wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:46 pm There's no reason to believe consciousness won't be figured out one day, and have a purely materialistic explanation that is simply beyond our current understanding.
The claim "there's no reason to believe X" is a belief based on faith in materialism, if materialism turns out to be wrong then the belief is unwarranted.
DrNoGods wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:46 pm You can't rule that out ... it isn't "impossible" by any of the arguments you've made.
See: Proof by contradiction.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14002
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?

Post #203

Post by William »

[Replying to Inquirer in post #202]

I think the argument Swami presents is not faith-based, but agree that the argument DrNoGods makes is faith based, and so too is Inquirers.

Swami is critical of the Western approach, not only with atheistic-based science but also with Western Theism, because both approaches - while in apparent opposition with each other - are still very much the same in their assumptions.

Which - in its own weird way - is precisely why they appear in opposition to each other.

Perhaps the apparent opposition is purposeful on some collective subconscious level and therein, they act outwardly as enemies, but [inwardly], are a team... in order to go about screwing the world...it is a tradition of Western Mindset modus operandi with an impressive wake of destruction trailing behind it like monstrous giants skid-mark.

Image

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?

Post #204

Post by brunumb »

Inquirer wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:51 am You have faith in science "because" of a "track record" no other reason.
Something of an oxymoron there. The scientific method is the means by which we eliminate or reduce the incidence of conclusions based on faith or belief. If we have confidence in the effectiveness of the scientific method it must surely be as a consequence of its track record. That's not a criticism. What other reason should we have?
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?

Post #205

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Inquirer in post #202]
You have faith in science "because" of a "track record" no other reason. Your argument in no way proves that consciousness has a material, causal explanation you believe it does and that's fine but do not present a belief as an objective established fact.
I have never claimed that consciousness DOES have a material explanation, only that it has not been proven that it does not, or cannot, and so it is still solidly on the table. You certainly have not proven it doesn't by contradiction! Since a nonmaterialistic explanation does not exist, there's no reason to discard a potential materialistic explanation. It is an unsolved problem which does not default to one side or the other. Betting on something with a good track record is certainly better than betting on something having zero record of success.
Yes thank you, I'm quite aware of that, a case in point being science has not explained why science is possible.
What?
The point is that the very claim that it has a "molecular level" explanation leads to contradictions, my example is a proof by contradiction that a theory or free will is impossible because it cannot be tested because the behavior of a system with free will cannot be predicted and science progresses by enabling us to make predictions. If we cannot reliably predict outcomes then we cannot claim to understand can we? If I had some theory for predicting the weather in my yard and time after time after time I got it wrong, would you trust my theory?
You're missing the point that I've made repeatedly that we do NOT understand consciousness at the molecular level, so your "proof by contradiction" is anything but. You're assuming that we understand every step in the process at the molecular level when we don't, and that assumption is the fatal flaw in your "proof." We cannot predict the outcome of anything without understanding how it works, and there is no complete theory of consciousness working at the fundamental level of neurons, memory elements, and all of the related electrical and chemical signalling. Since there is no such theory (yet), you cannot conclude that it isn't possible to predict outcomes ... only that we lack sufficient understanding at the moment to do so now. If we had that full understanding, and still could not predict the outcomes, you'd have a point. But we're not there yet.

The weather prediction analogy is apropos because it is an example of having only partial information. We cannot predict the weather precisely because we don't have enough information at small enough scales to do so. Weather models have used smaller and smaller atmospheric grids as more computing power has become available and higher frequencies of inputs from radiosondes and satellites are fed into them. So they have gotten progressively better over time. But to predict weather precisely we'd need measurements of temperature, pressure, H2O number density, solar intensity, etc. on a grid of millimeters or less and this is orders of magintude smaller than we are capable of doing now. But we don't resort to making no predictions at all, or throwing our hands up in the air and declaring it impossible, or the actions of gods, because we don't have the ability to predict the weather with 100% accuracy.
A theory of free will though must be untestable because if we can predict what a system does reliably then obviously that system does not possess free will does it?
Begging the question.
No, the example is a reasoned argument that I offer as a proof by contradiction that there can be no free will or consciousness if it is based on laws and causality and mechanistic processes. Why not critique the reasoning or premises rather than going around in circles chasing your tail?
See above (fatal flaw is the premise that we understand consciousness at the molecular level well enough to make predictions, when we obviously do not).
Which argument don't you "buy"? Tell me which of these premises you don't buy please:

1. Scientific theories enable us to make predictions.
2. We test theories by devising experiments that lead to certain predictions.
3. We compare the actual measured outcomes with those predicted.
4. We reject a theory that generates predictions that differ from what is measured.
None of them, but you've left out the most important detail. We don't understand consciousness well enough at the molecular level to predict every outcome, therefore there is no theory to make predictions of every outcome. You're wrongly assuming that such a theory does already exist, then declaring that it can't predict decision making in humans, and claiming you've made a proof by contradition. You've created the contradiction by assuming a predictive theory that does not yet exist.
The claim "there's no reason to believe X" is a belief based on faith in materialism, if materialism turns out to be wrong then the belief is unwarranted.
Sure ... but materialism has not yet been proven to be wrong and until it does I'm happy to put my "faith" in something with a solid track record of producing the goods.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Inquirer
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1012
Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?

Post #206

Post by Inquirer »

brunumb wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 6:34 pm
Inquirer wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:51 am You have faith in science "because" of a "track record" no other reason.
Something of an oxymoron there. The scientific method is the means by which we eliminate or reduce the incidence of conclusions based on faith or belief. If we have confidence in the effectiveness of the scientific method it must surely be as a consequence of its track record. That's not a criticism. What other reason should we have?
The scientific method has limitations and rests on assumptions and beliefs, that's not a criticism its a fact.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?

Post #207

Post by Clownboat »

Inquirer wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 9:36 am
brunumb wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 6:34 pm
Inquirer wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:51 am You have faith in science "because" of a "track record" no other reason.
Something of an oxymoron there. The scientific method is the means by which we eliminate or reduce the incidence of conclusions based on faith or belief. If we have confidence in the effectiveness of the scientific method it must surely be as a consequence of its track record. That's not a criticism. What other reason should we have?
The scientific method has limitations and rests on assumptions and beliefs, that's not a criticism its a fact.
Is there a method that you would suggest we use over the scientific method?

Assuming so, (otherwise why complain about the scientific method?) it would be nice if this method you suggest doesn't have limitations nor that it rests on any assumptions and belief. If it does, you will have people complaining over such things. Then you will be stuck here wondering if they have a better method or if they are just are here to complain about the best we humans have come up with so far.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14002
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?

Post #208

Post by William »

[Replying to Inquirer in post #206]
The scientific method has limitations and rests on assumptions and beliefs, ...
I think you are conflating scientific method with atheistic interpretation of what the science reveals.

The scientific method does have natural limitations...we walk before we run - but assumptions and beliefs are not part of the scientific method.

The scientific method does not claim we exist or do not exist within a creation.
that's not a criticism its a fact.
It is neither.
It is an unsupported statement of opinion.

User avatar
Inquirer
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1012
Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?

Post #209

Post by Inquirer »

Clownboat wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 1:40 pm
Inquirer wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 9:36 am
brunumb wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 6:34 pm
Inquirer wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:51 am You have faith in science "because" of a "track record" no other reason.
Something of an oxymoron there. The scientific method is the means by which we eliminate or reduce the incidence of conclusions based on faith or belief. If we have confidence in the effectiveness of the scientific method it must surely be as a consequence of its track record. That's not a criticism. What other reason should we have?
The scientific method has limitations and rests on assumptions and beliefs, that's not a criticism its a fact.
Is there a method that you would suggest we use over the scientific method?
Why use any method? why assume that all knowledge is methodologically derived? Science rests on assumptions and beliefs so we can hardly use it in situations where we can't make those assumptions, a better question would be - how do we gain knowledge in situations where science is inapplicable?
Clownboat wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 1:40 pm Assuming so, (otherwise why complain about the scientific method?) it would be nice if this method you suggest doesn't have limitations nor that it rests on any assumptions and belief. If it does, you will have people complaining over such things. Then you will be stuck here wondering if they have a better method or if they are just are here to complain about the best we humans have come up with so far.
Folly, one cannot use the scientific method as the justification for the scientific method, which is exactly what you are now arguing here.

Also where did I "complain"? I have stated simple facts about epistemology and the limitations of scientific inquiry. Pointing out the rather obvious fact that science is based on assumptions is not a complaint, why do you regard it as a complaint? do you think my claim is untrue? Do you believe that science assumes nothing whatsoever?

User avatar
Inquirer
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1012
Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?

Post #210

Post by Inquirer »

William wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 2:32 pm [Replying to Inquirer in post #206]
The scientific method has limitations and rests on assumptions and beliefs, ...
I think you are conflating scientific method with atheistic interpretation of what the science reveals.

The scientific method does have natural limitations...we walk before we run - but assumptions and beliefs are not part of the scientific method.

The scientific method does not claim we exist or do not exist within a creation.
that's not a criticism its a fact.
It is neither.
It is an unsupported statement of opinion.
No it is a rather obvious and frankly uncontroversial fact. Science assumes that one can treat as fact the results of experiments yet to be performed. This is what devotees of scientism do everyday. That the sun has risen in the past does not prove that it will rise tomorrow. That claim is a belief, based on assumptions about nature, we call something a law if every time we do an experiment we get the same outcome but that is an expression of belief, we cannot prove a laws of physics is a law, we can only claim it is a law.

The fact is we have no idea if the sun will rise tomorrow, it cannot be proven - until tomorrow. All claims about the future are based on assumptions and beliefs, this is basic philosophy, something that too many scientists neglect.

Post Reply