Progress in consciousness?

stuh505 wrote:

If it can be created, than there is a way for it to be created

This is true.

stuh505 wrote:

[then] this way can be known.

This does not follow.

stuh505 wrote:

you can't say that it's impossible to understand something.

I can and I do! If Heisenberg says that it is impossible to know something (and you believe him), then why would you balk at the proposition that it is impossible to understand something? Frankly, the inability of the vast majority of humanity to understand all kinds of things argues strongly for the inability of all of humanity to understand some things! We're really not as smart as you might like to believe. To paraphrase Pascal:

Pascal wrote:

[Science]'s last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things which are beyond it. It is merely feeble if it does not go as far as to realize that.

Stuh505's faith in science is commendable, to be sure, but misguided. The human mind (and hence science) has its limits.

0 Replies

you can understand something without knowing it.

I understand how the telephone works, even though I ahve no way of KNOWING if it exists or not.

0 Replies

Stuh, I may have misrepresented Chalmers' description of the problem. He may not have any concern with WHY. Nevertheless, the neuroscientific problem is "easy" because it is empirically answerable. This only requires time to accomplish. The "hard" problem is philosophical and probably requires a major breakthrough in thinking about the phenomenon of consciousness. Fresco and Tywvel can probably make better comments on this topic.

0 Replies

stuh505:
It is almost embarassing to conviently
keep agreeing with your posts, word for word, amd
this save me the task of commenting on the very debatable positions of JLN. However, so be it, I am in total agreement with your "reply" to JLN's position as he expressed in his latest post.
I particularly like your statement that JLN
has obviously expressed the problem backwards.
It is the holistic "how" question that is not answered, NOT the "why". And for JLN to suggest
that science does not investigate, and seek proof
for the "why" , only the "how". surprises me.

0 Replies

Alikimr, I'm surprised my generalization about science's focus on how (things work and come about) and its ignor-ance of why issues should surprise you. It's virtually a truism, which is to say common knowledge.

0 Replies

con·scious ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knshs)
adj.

1. Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See Synonyms at aware.
2. Mentally perceptive or alert; awake: The patient remained fully conscious after the local anesthetic was administered.

A common definition .... almost spoken in third person.
Who is observing the awareness neccessary for consciousness?
Is it possible for one level of consciousness to observe another, higher or lower level?
Wouldn't that require a separate entity or intellect?

0 Replies

Gel, I'm not sure what you mean by "level" of consciousness. For "consciousness", I like the synonyms, "experience" and "awake". But ""awake seems to apply only to the experience of the consciousness mind as opposed to the unconscious mind. "Experience" brings to mind the hypothetical difference between the awareness of a human and that of a rock. The rock stands for, in my comment here, nature before the evolution of humans. Rocks are not, as far as we know, aware, not to mention self-aware. Levels of awareness might be applicable to the differences in experience between, say, birds and humans. Is that the kind of "level" you are referring to? (I doubt it). Or do you refer to the difference between conscious and unconscious awareness? Or do you refer to the difference (I don't think so) between a very intelligent and a very dull human? Just wandering about here.

0 Replies

JLNobody:
I am surprised that you are surprised....
its probably a situation where your "why" and "how" is interpreted differently than my "why"
and "how". To ancient humans night changed to day when the sun rovolved around our earth....science explained why this really occured , and proved it to be so ,because our planet rotated every 24 hours , while the sun remained stationary.
Science provided the real "why" , did it not?
Science tells you not only how a televisin works, but also why.....as well as an automobile ,
radio, tornado, ,etc., etc. I believe your doubts about the capacity of science with respect to the
philosophical questions with which we are faced , is
allowing your considerable intellect to offer as a truism something that is certainly not what you refer to as "common Knowledge".

0 Replies

JL .... my understanding of consciousness is that there are different levels or degrees of consciousness/awareness. Being 3rd dimensional creatures we can, in varying degrees (consciousness within consciousness) relate to things of the height width and depth persuasion. ..... perhaps an over simplification. Occaisionally there are 'bleed throughs' from adjacent levels ..... dejavu?
Some 3rd d'ers .... those on the edge of their capacities have 'pschyic' abilities that suggest higher powers but are in actuallity graduates to an upper or lower level .... just different, not superior. There are no 'superior' levels, only varied reception abilities not unlike the very intelligent and the very dull you addressed. those from the highest levels (there are all levels) have to alter their level of consciousness to be conscious in a higher or lower level.

My question?
Who/what operates the elevator to the different levels?
Who/what interprets the incoming data?

oops thats two ?s

0 Replies

jnhofzinser: I do not believe any information is impossible to be known. I am not familiar with this Heisenberg, but if he says certain information cannot be known, then he sounds like an idiot to me.

JLN: Science does not ignore the why. In this situation, the why is so obvious that there is nothing to debate...it is a product of random chance. that is why. but for some things, science does seem to "ignore" the why. For instance, we know HOW gravity works but we don't know WHY it exists. But science does not puposely ignore the why. If someone were able to discover why, they would become famous, and it would be accepted as scientific. The problem is that the why questions are often more difficult to answer, especially when it comes to the basic principles of the universe. Hopefully someday we will learn why.

Alik: glad to hear someone here agrees with me...

Gelisgesti: I agree that consciousness has more than two states, this is one of the points I listed. However, the rest of your post is nonsense.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

I am not familiar with this Heisenberg, but if he says certain information cannot be known, then he sounds like an idiot to me.

Thanks for that. You made my day Very Happy

According to the American Institute of Physics site, Werner Heisenberg was "one of the greatest physicists of the twentieth century" and "the founder of quantum mechanics." A succinct summary of the man's most famous work can be found here. Welcome to the real world.

regards, nepo

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

jnhofzinser: I do not believe any information is impossible to be known. I am not familiar with this Heisenberg, but if he says certain information cannot be known, then he sounds like an idiot to me.

JLN: Science does not ignore the why. In this situation, the why is so obvious that there is nothing to debate...it is a product of random chance. that is why. but for some things, science does seem to "ignore" the why. For instance, we know HOW gravity works but we don't know WHY it exists. But science does not puposely ignore the why. If someone were able to discover why, they would become famous, and it would be accepted as scientific. The problem is that the why questions are often more difficult to answer, especially when it comes to the basic principles of the universe. Hopefully someday we will learn why.

Alik: glad to hear someone here agrees with me...

Gelisgesti: I agree that consciousness has more than two states, this is one of the points I listed. However, the rest of your post is nonsense.

stuh505,
I'm sorry, I thought this forum was intend to be an open exchange of thoughts. While you dismiss my thoughts on thoughts as nonsense I will resist the urge to dismiss your thoughts as simply rude and continue to exchange ideas with the forum. May I suggest that you think a bit more about the truths that may be uncovered if we try to exchange ideas without belittlement of others contributions.

You have a very very nice day! Smile

0 Replies

alikimr wrote:

Science provided the real "why", did it not?

Unfortunately, it did not. It only provided another layer of "how". And there is another layer underneath that one, too. And another...and another...and another. Perhaps you are familiar with is the "why game" that toddlers play (the child apparently wanting to pull back all the layers of "how" -- a remarkable phenomenon of consciousness in its own right): it often ends up with considerable frustration on the part of the parent. Wink

This game sometimes degenerates because the toddler becomes more fascinated in the exercise of power than in the answers. But not all toddlers fall into this trap immediately. Some really want to know "why the earth revolves around the sun."

The ultimate answer to "why" is (as JLN correctly points out) in the realm of metaphysics. Equivalently, it is a matter of faith. Some would tell the child, "There is no more why." Some would say, "For no reason at all." Others might say, "God made it that way." All of these answers are beyond proof (or they require faith to imagine that they are provable).

0 Replies

I agree that there are different levels of consciousness in the sense that we humans not only are conscious of what we perceive with our senses, but are also aware of our own existence and of our own thoughts on a more "interior" level. Thus, as I see it, there's a distinction between uncontrollable, seemingly random thoughts passing through our mind, and realisation of the existence of these.

0 Replies

jnhofzinser wrote:

..................The human mind (and hence science) has its limits.

the mind is 'unlimited'; only the human mind has limits.

the future of thinking, has not yet begun.

Tiaha wrote:

you can understand something without knowing it.

I understand how the telephone works, even though I ahve no way of KNOWING if it exists or not.

one who 'uses' a technological appliance, without understanding how it functions, is losing the essence of its utilization.

0 Replies

alikimr wrote:

.....To ancient humans night changed to day when the sun rovolved around our earth....science explained why this really occured , and proved it to be so ,because our planet rotated every 24 hours , while the sun remained stationary.
Science provided the real "why" , did it not?........

Here science has explained the 'how' of night and day; the why of night and day is a non question - meaningless.

On the universal level the 'Why"s; why are we here?
why do we exist? why does the universe exist?
why is everything not perfect.
All are meaningless nonsense. There are no "reason"s; it is simply "reality".

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

the future ... has not yet begun.

A truism. The trick is putting meat on the bones. What will drive this future? Artificial Intelligence? phft. Evolution? yawn. Once again, answers to this question require faith. Whatever it is, don't expect to encounter it in your lifetime.

0 Replies

jnhofzinser wrote:

BoGoWo wrote:
the future ... has not yet begun.
A truism. The trick is putting meat on the bones. What will drive this future? Artificial Intelligence? phft. Evolution? yawn. Once again, answers to this question require faith. Whatever it is, don't expect to encounter it in your lifetime.

As always the 'future' will drive itself.

AI is in it's infancy, and provides, perhaps, more challenges, than it promises to solve, but will eventually, become the way ideas are processed, bringing a networked planetary intelligence, immortality, and the ability (in spite of starting out 'inside a box') of thinking 'outside the box'!

and, by the way, 'evolution' is over!

jnhofzinser wrote:

.......Once again, answers to this question require faith. Whatever it is, don't expect to encounter it in your lifetime.

'Faith' is for the faint of heart; a substitute for 'courage of your convictions'; maybe i will be the first one "downloaded"! Laughing

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

There are no "reason"s; it is simply "reality".

We ask our children "why are you crying?" and each child learns that "why" indicates both causality and intent(!)

This is "why" the human mind is the true "final frontier" of science: the illusion/reality of decision-making (i.e. intention, choices, free-will, etc.) requires an infinite regress that breaks the bounds of the materialistic dogma "there is no 'why'".

The beauty of it is that if there is no "why" then there is no "truth as perceived", only (perhaps!) "truth as is". Humans' very struggle(!) for a "truth as perceived" (for example, folks championing materialism in an internet debate) is entirely meaningless if there is no why!

Bottom line: the "answer" to "why?" that "there is no 'why'" requires as much faith as any other "answer".

0 Replies

I refered to 'why's with respect to 'universal reality'.

jnhofzinser wrote:

BoGoWo wrote:
There are no "reason"s; it is simply "reality".
We ask our children "why are you crying?" and each child learns that "why" indicates both causality and intent(!)

This is "why" the human mind is the true "final frontier" of science: the illusion/reality of decision-making (i.e. intention, choices, free-will, etc.) requires an infinite regress that breaks the bounds of the materialistic dogma "there is no 'why'".

The beauty of it is that if there is no "why" then there is no "truth as perceived", only (perhaps!) "truth as is". Humans' very struggle(!) for a "truth as perceived" (for example, folks championing materialism in an internet debate) is entirely meaningless if there is no why!

Bottom line: the "answer" to "why?"
that "there is no 'why'" requires as much faith as any other "answer".

Faith that there is a why, has created nothing but misguided speculation on the 'needs' of the universe.

0 Replies

Progress in consciousness?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know