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?

[bluethread]

I prefer the logic in understanding the idea of GOD as something which has to evolve with human understanding.

If by "the idea of GOD" you are refering to all that constitutes a supreme deity, then I differ in that I do not think that deity evolves with human understanding, but human understanding expands as that deity reveals the nature of His existance to humans.

That said, though you are free to pursue that line of discussion, I personally am limiting myself to that which those who hold science as their overarching philosophy agree exists. In doing so, I hope to determine if such a philosophy is adequate to encompass it's own universe, or whether such a philosophy requires that the inclusion nonscientific methods to explain the full nature of the human experience.

[imhereforyou]

[Replying to post 27 by bluethread]

So, you appear to disagree with the premise that science can provide us with all of the answers we need.

Depends on how you define need. What I need may not be what you need.

Regarding scientific proof, (1+1=2) is not an example of that. It is not a fact, but an agreed upon premise that supports standard mathematics. One can also say that 1+1=10.

Used as an example which doesn't need to be debating here in effort not to derail the topic but great way to avoid the premise

[William]

[Replying to post 31 by bluethread]

If by "the idea of GOD" you are refering to all that constitutes a supreme deity, then I differ in that I do not think that deity evolves with human understanding, but human understanding expands as that deity reveals the nature of His existance to humans.

No. By 'idea' of GOD I am simply speaking about any and all ideas of GOD and it is not so much a case of anyone having to 'wait' until GOD reveals the nature of Its existence to humans. The nature of GOD is already obvious in relation to the reality of this universe, but the obvious still requires the evolution of human understanding in order to see it.

Thus, the idea of GOD either evolves with that understanding or does not.

A simple graph speaks to what I am meaning and can be viewed in this post;

♦The idea that GOD is the same 'yesterday, today and forever' can be aligned with the idea of a GOD evolving within the understanding of human beings.

That said, though you are free to pursue that line of discussion, I personally am limiting myself to that which those who hold science as their overarching philosophy agree exists.

Sure. I am fine with that.

In doing so, I hope to determine if such a philosophy is adequate to encompass it's own universe, or whether such a philosophy requires that the inclusion nonscientific methods to explain the full nature of the human experience.

And by 'nonscientific methods' one circles back to theistic philosophy...

[bluethread]

In doing so, I hope to determine if such a philosophy is adequate to encompass it's own universe, or whether such a philosophy requires that the inclusion nonscientific methods to explain the full nature of the human experience.

And by 'nonscientific methods' one circles back to theistic philosophy...

No, one can be an atheistic mystic or an atheist who sees much of the human experience as composed of cognative and/or social constructs, in addition to things that can be verified through scientific means.

[William]

[Replying to post 34 by bluethread]

No, one can be an atheistic mystic or an atheist who sees much of the human experience as composed of cognative and/or social constructs...

Then it is tomato tomato potato potato. One can of course remain in those positions by ignoring wider philosophies dealing with how the universe came to exist without the involvement of any intelligent creative purposeful conscious agency.

But those philosophies will still remain valid.

Consciousness is just naturally enough inclined toward that, given half a chance.

[Divine Insight]

Besides, you can't know anymore about your consciousness than I can know about mine. Therefore your arguments are meaningless.

Rubbish! For a starter, you are speaking of the consciousness as if it was the possession of the wee speck of stardust that you think you are.

You are speaking of it as if it were a separate thing from how you self identify.

Unless you believe in Solipsism consciousness most likely is an objective property of the human condition. So, yes, it makes perfect sense for me to speak of consciousness as though it is an objective property of human brains.

If my consciousness ceases to exist I would also cease to exist, right? I mean that would be true whether consciousness is physical or spiritual.

So I both 'have' consciousness, and I 'am' consciousness simultaneously. Regardless of whether consciousness is physical or spiritual.

In fact, this supports the idea that consciousness is a manifestation of a feedback loop. This is what allows us to both have consciousness and recognize that we have it.

When my physical brain stops running I'll no doubt lose consciousness. If my brain stops permanently, then I'll be permanently unconsciousness. In short, I will no longer exist.

So consciousness is both something I 'have' and something I 'am'. It's both.

[William]

[Replying to post 36 by Divine Insight]

Unless you believe in Solipsism consciousness most likely is an objective property of the human condition.

Rubbish. You have simply introduced Solipsism into the argument as an attempt tp deflect from answering the context post #26.

Self identifying as a meat sack.

The is no requirement to 'believe in Solipsism' in order to have an understanding that consciousness is something that we each are rather than something we each possess.

So, yes, it makes perfect sense for me to speak of consciousness as though it is an objective property of human brains.

So no. The so-called 'perfect sense' you claim is based upon the imperfect idea that if one does not see consciousness as an emergent property of the brain, one is therefore taking the position of Solipsism.

If my consciousness ceases to exist I would also cease to exist, right? I mean that would be true whether consciousness is physical or spiritual.

It is not necessary for you to separate the two. What you are really saying there is that "If I cease to exist, I cease to exist."
Spin what you wrote the other way around.

"If I cease to exist, my consciousness would also cease to exist," which is what one would expect to hear from someone who self identifies as the human instrument - the physical body. The meat-sack. The stardust.

This is because - you are not self identifying as consciousness but as the brain which you believe creates consciousness for you (the brain-body) to use.

If consciousness ceases to exist, we all cease to exist, right?

My own theology has it that consciousness is eternal (GOD) and will never cease to exist.
Others have the idea that the individual can be annihilated (made to cease to exist) and I do not disagree with this idea (in that it contradicts my own theology) but understand such process as a separation of soul from the individuate consciousness [IC] it was attached to.

With that in mind it could be argued that the person is therefore the soul rather than the consciousness, but this would be incorrect.

The soul is the memory storage facility. An individuals subjective Data of Experience is contained in the soul.

If the person is annihilated this simply means that the soul has been detached from the IC.

Neither the IC or the soul is actually destroyed in that process.

The ICs reintegrate with the overall Consciousness they are most directly sourced from - they no longer are individual aspects of that consciousness attached with a soul attached. It is like a drop of water re-absorbed into the lake, and as such, indistinguishable from the lake.

So I both 'have' consciousness, and I 'am' consciousness simultaneously. Regardless of whether consciousness is physical or spiritual.

That is an unnecessary play on wording.

To have something is to possess something. One cannot possess ones self. One can only BE.

In fact, this supports the idea that consciousness is a manifestation of a feedback loop. This is what allows us to both have consciousness and recognize that we have it.

Then that idea is incorrect because it relies upon an unnecessary addition in order to appear sensible.

Thus what 'allows us to both have consciousness and recognize that we have it' is simply an illusion.

The better idea is to just accept that we are consciousness, and that we have experience.

When my physical brain stops running I'll no doubt lose consciousness. If my brain stops permanently, then I'll be permanently unconsciousness. In short, I will no longer exist.

Well that is one theory of course. Beliefs are shaped around theories.

My own subjective experience has shown me a different way of looking at things. That was what i was pointing out in post #26

You believe you are a good person, so if you were to self identify as consciousness with the idea that you may not actually cease to be after your body has died, this may have a significant influence on how you might change in that regard.

This was not to say that you might change from being a good person, but that you might change the way you see your self.

and;

But is 'who you are' as in - 'how you choose to self identify' - the truth?
When your stardust body finally dies, will that be the end of you and your experience forevermore, or would it be a matter of your stardust body 'giving up the ghost' - releasing YOU from that experience?

Please list the reasons WHY any thoughts re such an event which might happen, would have no affect on changing how you think you are and how you behave presently.

The request for this information was to help the reader ascertain why you think such an idea wouldn't change how you presently see your self. How you presently self identify.

[Divine Insight]

The is no requirement to 'believe in Solipsism' in order to have an understanding that consciousness is something that we each are rather than something we each possess.

That a rather silly semantic argument don't you think?

I have clearly stated that if my consciousness ceases to exist I then also necessarily cease to exist. Therefore "being consciousness" and "possessing consciousness" are just two different ways of verbalizing the very same concept.

A simple explanation here is that you are obviously thinking of "possessing" something in terms of owning it. You are thinking of "possession" as in a social context of ownership of an object. Whereas, I am thinking of "possession" from an objective scientific perspective. If we have a specific trait or attribute, then we say that we "possess" that attribute. This has nothing to do with social possessions of owning something that is separate from us.

So this is just semantic confusion on your part. You are confusing "possessing a trait" with the social idea of "ownership of something that is separate from you".

So, yes, it makes perfect sense for me to speak of consciousness as though it is an objective property of human brains.

So no. The so-called 'perfect sense' you claim is based upon the imperfect idea that if one does not see consciousness as an emergent property of the brain, one is therefore taking the position of Solipsism.

What I mean by that is that you are ignoring the fact that everyone else is conscious when you argue that I can't speak of consciousness objectively. I can indeed speak of consciousness as an objective phenomenon precisely because I'm not the only one who "possesses" this trait. Therefore it makes sense to recognize the phenomenon of consciousness as an objective phenomenon that clearly arises in all brains. Also, we have no reason to believe that anything that does not have a brain is "conscious". So it certainly makes 'perfect sense' to recognize that consciousness is a property of brains.

To argue otherwise really has no sound basis.

If my consciousness ceases to exist I would also cease to exist, right? I mean that would be true whether consciousness is physical or spiritual.

It is not necessary for you to separate the two. What you are really saying there is that "If I cease to exist, I cease to exist."
Spin what you wrote the other way around.

"If I cease to exist, my consciousness would also cease to exist," which is what one would expect to hear from someone who self identifies as the human instrument - the physical body. The meat-sack. The stardust.

This is because - you are not self identifying as consciousness but as the brain which you believe creates consciousness for you (the brain-body) to use.

No you are wrong. I don't self identify as a "brain". I self identify as the consciousness that the brain creates. Just because the brain creates the consciousness doesn't mean that I am the brain. I'm still just the consciousness. However, without the brain the consciousness could no longer exist. So I'm certainly dependent upon the existence of my brain. Without a brain the consciousness, that constitutes "me" cannot exist.

Why are you so opposed to this idea?

And far more importantly, what is your explanation if this isn't the case? That something magical is going on performed by some imagined "higher being"?

How would that help anything?

One you fall into that line of reasoning then you necessarily need to continue on apply that very same reasoning to the "higher being" that you believe exists beyond human consciousness.

In other words, you are offering a "non-answer", because now you are stuck with having to explain how this imagined "higher being" is conscious, or capable of providing humans with consciousness. And you can't even assign it a "brain" to explain its consciousness because you have already rejected that idea.

If you're going to end up giving this imaginary "higher being" a brain, then you may as well save yourself a lot of unnecessary steps and just accept that human consciousness is produced by human brains.

In short, there's no usefulness to your proposed hypothesis. It doesn't lead to any answers, all it does is pass the buck into an imaginary realm that never needed to be hypothesized in the first place. It doesn't explain anything. To the contrary, the idea that some 'higher being' is providing billions of humans 'consciousness' that is not dependent upon their physical brains doesn't make any sense at all.

Quite frankly the idea is ridiculous.

My own theology has it that consciousness is eternal (GOD) and will never cease to exist.
Others have the idea that the individual can be annihilated (made to cease to exist) and I do not disagree with this idea (in that it contradicts my own theology) but understand such process as a separation of soul from the individuate consciousness [IC] it was attached to.

That not even a "Theology". All you are doing at this point is making wild speculations that have no basis in any factual evidence.

You are imagining scenario while ignoring the facts of reality.

With that in mind it could be argued that the person is therefore the soul rather than the consciousness, but this would be incorrect.

The soul is the memory storage facility. An individuals subjective Data of Experience is contained in the soul.

If the person is annihilated this simply means that the soul has been detached from the IC.

Neither the IC or the soul is actually destroyed in that process.

And your evidence for these claims is,....?

The ICs reintegrate with the overall Consciousness they are most directly sourced from - they no longer are individual aspects of that consciousness attached with a soul attached. It is like a drop of water re-absorbed into the lake, and as such, indistinguishable from the lake.

Pantheism. Yes, I'm familiar with the idea. None the less, it's just an idea. There is no evidence that this idea has any merit. Moreover, there are many different ideas on how a pantheistic existence might actually work.

You had previously mentioned an individual "soul" being represented by memory of experiences. But what would happen to that memory of individual experience when the soul is re-absorbed back into the lake of consciousness from when it first arose?

Pantheism has its own myriad of problems to work out. And there is no evidence for it. It's simply a romantic notion, and one that doesn't even explain how the "consciousness of the lake" works.

So you are right back to square one in having to explain how this lake is conscious. You haven't make any headway at all.

So I both 'have' consciousness, and I 'am' consciousness simultaneously. Regardless of whether consciousness is physical or spiritual.

That is an unnecessary play on wording.

To have something is to possess something. One cannot possess ones self. One can only BE.

And again, you are the one who is confusing objective 'possession' (i.e. possessing a given attribute or quality) with the social concept of 'possession' (i.e. being recognized as the owner of something that is separate from you).

I'm talking about possessing attributes or qualities in a mathematical or scientific sense. I'm not talking about social ownership of things that are separate from us.

So this is just semantic confusion on your part that I hope has now been cleared up.

In fact, this supports the idea that consciousness is a manifestation of a feedback loop. This is what allows us to both have consciousness and recognize that we have it.

Then that idea is incorrect because it relies upon an unnecessary addition in order to appear sensible.

Thus what 'allows us to both have consciousness and recognize that we have it' is simply an illusion.

The better idea is to just accept that we are consciousness, and that we have experience.

What I have suggested is 100% compatible with us being conscious and having experience. You inability to understand this does not make my points wrong.

When my physical brain stops running I'll no doubt lose consciousness. If my brain stops permanently, then I'll be permanently unconsciousness. In short, I will no longer exist.

Well that is one theory of course. Beliefs are shaped around theories.

My own subjective experience has shown me a different way of looking at things. That was what i was pointing out in post #26

Are you claiming that you brain had stopped running? If not, then whatever experience you might have had is not inconsistent with the model I have outlined.

You believe you are a good person, so if you were to self identify as consciousness with the idea that you may not actually cease to be after your body has died, this may have a significant influence on how you might change in that regard.


This was not to say that you might change from being a good person, but that you might change the way you see your self.

But now you are in denial of your very own arguments.

I see myself as consciousness.

How is that going to change even if I were to adopt your view of Pantheism?

I would still be consciousness.

The only difference is that instead of ceasing to exist when my brain dies I would be re-adsorbed into a higher lake of consciousness.

I can't see where that should make any difference at all in how I currently view myself or conduct myself.

In fact, this is precisely why I see all these religious concepts as basically being moot.

What's the difference whether you are the result of a brain giving rise to consciousness or a infinite eternal lake giving rise to consciousness. That shouldn't make any difference at all in how you behave. If it does, then you should take some serious time looking into why this would make a difference to you in terms of how you would behave.

For me there is no difference in terms of how I would behave, or view myself.

In both cases I'm still consciousness. The only difference would be in the larger picture of how my consciousness came to be. But that shouldn't play a role in how I behave. Or how I view myself.

But is 'who you are' as in - 'how you choose to self identify' - the truth?
When your stardust body finally dies, will that be the end of you and your experience forevermore, or would it be a matter of your stardust body 'giving up the ghost' - releasing YOU from that experience?

Please list the reasons WHY any thoughts re such an event which might happen, would have no affect on changing how you think you are and how you behave presently.

The request for this information was to help the reader ascertain why you think such an idea wouldn't change how you presently see your self. How you presently self identify.

"But is 'who you are' as in - 'how you choose to self identify' - the truth?"

Yes. I am conscious. That is the truth. Period. Nothing further needs to be said.

I don't need to know the origins of my consciousness for the above to be true.

"When your stardust body finally dies, will that be the end of you and your experience forevermore, or would it be a matter of your stardust body 'giving up the ghost' - releasing YOU from that experience?"

That question is irrelevant for me, because I don't base my life on what "might happen" after my body dies.

This question you are asking only applies to people who would behave differently, or view themselves differently, if they knew the answer to what happens to them after they die.

That question is a moot question for me. It doesn't matter to me at all what happens after this life. If I just cease to exist I'll never know that I had ever lived, much less that I had died. So there's quite literally "nothing" to death if a secular worldview is true.

Now what about the alternative question? What if there is an afterlife and I'll need to answer for my behavior in this life? Once again no problem. I'm totally prepared for that scenario as well.

If you are correct with your belief in Pantheism, then I'll just rejoin the infinite consciousness. No problem.

If some of these other religions are true, then I'll have to deal with their angry egotistical Gods. If their God actually represents truth, love and justice, then I have nothing to fear. If their God is an unreasonable irate mean and hateful idiot, then of course I could find myself a dire situation after I die. But I'm certainly not going to try to appease angry hateful Gods throughout this life just "in case" they might actually exist. What would be the point to that anyway? If I have to live for the rest of eternity with an angry hateful God I'm in seriously bad shape no matter what I do.

So there you have it.

1. If secularism is true: I'm good to go.

2. If Pantheism is true: I'm good to go.

3. If a genuinely loving just God exists: I'm good to go.

4. The only scenario that would be problematic for me is if a hateful demonic nasty "God" exists who has no sense of justice or decency. This is the only scenario that would be problematic for me, but if this is the truth of reality then we're all in seriously bad shape. Even those who think that an angry hateful God could be somehow pacified.

So I'm as prepared for death as any human can possibly be.

And as far as I can see the only problematic scenario would be #4. And I'm certainly not going to change who I am in an attempt to try to appease a hateful demonic God.

So even if I knew the truth of reality it wouldn't change who I am or how I view myself.

Well, of course, if I knew that #4 was true I'd probably be extreme depressed, and would probably even commit suicide just so I can let the hateful demonic God cast me into his hell. No sense in even trying to put that off if it's going to last for eternity anyway. There's no way I could appease a hateful demonic God for eternity, so I may as well dive right into his hell from the get-go.

[bluethread]

What I mean by that is that you are ignoring the fact that everyone else is conscious when you argue that I can't speak of consciousness objectively. I can indeed speak of consciousness as an objective phenomenon precisely because I'm not the only one who "possesses" this trait. Therefore it makes sense to recognize the phenomenon of consciousness as an objective phenomenon that clearly arises in all brains. Also, we have no reason to believe that anything that does not have a brain is "conscious". So it certainly makes 'perfect sense' to recognize that consciousness is a property of brains.

I do not wish to interfer with your discussion of post coporeal existance, however, I am interested in the naturalistic explanation of these phenomena.

On what do you base your assertion that everyone else is conscious? Are you basing this on the Turing test, i.e. interacting with a consious being is distiguishable from interacting with a nonconsious being? Also, regarding identifying consiuosness exclusively with brain function, it is my understanding that less than half of the nervous system is in the brain. Is it your view that consiousness is located exclusively in a specific part of the brain, an effect of interactions of vaious parts of the brain, or something that incompasses the entire nervous system?

I don't self identify as a "brain". I self identify as the consciousness that the brain creates. Just because the brain creates the consciousness doesn't mean that I am the brain. I'm still just the consciousness. However, without the brain the consciousness could no longer exist. So I'm certainly dependent upon the existence of my brain. Without a brain the consciousness, that constitutes "me" cannot exist.

That may be an explanation of the interaction between the brain and consousness, but it does not help identify what consciousness actually is. If "you" is seperate from your brain, what specifically is "you"? Isn't this just a mental construct that allows you to think of yourslf as a person, rather than just the interaction of biochemical presesses?

[Divine Insight]

On what do you base your assertion that everyone else is conscious?

I'm not asserting that everyone else is conscious. I simply pointed out that if a person doesn't accept that assumption then they have little choice but to embrace solipsism.

So it's your choice. Choose whichever you prefer.

I don't self identify as a "brain". I self identify as the consciousness that the brain creates. Just because the brain creates the consciousness doesn't mean that I am the brain. I'm still just the consciousness. However, without the brain the consciousness could no longer exist. So I'm certainly dependent upon the existence of my brain. Without a brain the consciousness, that constitutes "me" cannot exist.

That may be an explanation of the interaction between the brain and consousness, but it does not help identify what consciousness actually is. If "you" is seperate from your brain, what specifically is "you"? Isn't this just a mental construct that allows you to think of yourslf as a person, rather than just the interaction of biochemical presesses?

It's not an interaction between the brain and consciousness. Consciousness is most likely a self-referencing feedback loop. Of course that loop cannot exist without the brain which gives rise to it. But even so, it's not an "interaction" between the brain and consciousness.

It's not like the brain has consciousness. What has become conscious is the feedback loop itself. You could say that the brain "has" a feedback loop but that doesn't make the brain itself "aware" of anything. What has "awareness" is the feedback loop itself.

I'll grant you that it is difficult for us to grasp how a specific pattern of energy can become "aware".

But face it, demanding that there must be a "magical soul" simply because a person can't understand how a pattern of energy can become aware does nothing at all to help the situation.

In fact, all that approach does is demand that there is something like a "brain" (only in this case we're going to call it a "soul") that is actually having experiences.

Why bother with the extra luggage when the pattern of energy that is the feedback loop can suffice as the 'thing' that is having an experience? The brain produces this 'thing' but is not this 'thing' in an of itself.

In other words, the brain produces the feedback loop but is not itself the feedback loop.

So the brain is not what is having an experience. What is having an experience is the feedback loop of electromagnetic energy and information.

No need for a 'soul' since this explanation already covers what it is that is having an experience.

The very idea that you need to bring in something else certainly doesn't offer any better explanation. If you want to claim that a 'soul' is required, then you're stuck with having to explain exactly what a soul is, and how it can have an experience.

The active feedback loop of electrical energy that is processing information is a sufficient explanation for precisely what it is that is having an experience.

Of course, this feedback loop of electrical energy can only exist inside a physical container that is capable of producing it (i.e. a brain, or analog computer). So a brain is required to allow for consciousness to exist, but this does not mean that the brain itself is experiencing anything.

In fact, we can just about be guaranteed that this will be the answer to the reality of our situation. At the pace that technology is moving we'll most likely have the answer officially in our hands in the very near future.

In fact, Marvin Minsky may have already laid it all out in his book and he just hasn't yet been recognized for having the correct answer. So we may already have the answer in our hands and just don't yet realize it.