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?
What is ' consciousness ' ?
Moderator: Moderators
- 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[Replying to Inquirer in post #200]
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 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.
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 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".
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.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.
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
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?
Post #202I 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 [Replying to Inquirer in post #200]
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 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.
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 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.
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 pmSurely you appreciate that science has not solved all problems that exist in the universe."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".
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.
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 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.
Which argument don't you "buy"? Tell me which of these premises you don't buy please:DrNoGods wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:46 pmIt hasn't fallen on deaf ears ... just several people don't buy your arguments for the reasons stated many times over in these threads.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.
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.
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.
See: Proof by contradiction.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14192
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?
Post #203[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.
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.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6627 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?
Post #204Something 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.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- 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[Replying to Inquirer in post #202]
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.
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.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.
What?Yes thank you, I'm quite aware of that, a case in point being science has not explained why science is possible.
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 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?
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.
Begging the question.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?
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).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?
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.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.
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.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.
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
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?
Post #206The scientific method has limitations and rests on assumptions and beliefs, that's not a criticism its a fact.brunumb wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 6:34 pmSomething 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?
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9383
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 909 times
- Been thanked: 1261 times
Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?
Post #207Is there a method that you would suggest we use over the scientific method?Inquirer wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 9:36 amThe scientific method has limitations and rests on assumptions and beliefs, that's not a criticism its a fact.brunumb wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 6:34 pmSomething 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?
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
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
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14192
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?
Post #208[Replying to Inquirer in post #206]
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.
It is an unsupported statement of opinion.
I think you are conflating scientific method with atheistic interpretation of what the science reveals.The scientific method has limitations and rests on assumptions and beliefs, ...
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.
It is neither.that's not a criticism its a fact.
It is an unsupported statement of opinion.
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?
Post #209Why 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 pmIs there a method that you would suggest we use over the scientific method?Inquirer wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 9:36 amThe scientific method has limitations and rests on assumptions and beliefs, that's not a criticism its a fact.brunumb wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 6:34 pmSomething 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?
Folly, one cannot use the scientific method as the justification for the scientific method, which is exactly what you are now arguing here.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.
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?
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?
Post #210No 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.William wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 2:32 pm [Replying to Inquirer in post #206]
I think you are conflating scientific method with atheistic interpretation of what the science reveals.The scientific method has limitations and rests on assumptions and beliefs, ...
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.
It is neither.that's not a criticism its a fact.
It is an unsupported statement of opinion.
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.