Progress in consciousness?

going to the lake for some eyes ...... lots to think about. back this pm.

0 Replies

Hello, stuh505 : you are a person of some flexibility and open enough to be able to apologize.
I respect that.

My statement about you was however made specifically to demonstrate your statement about Werner Heisenberg.

As you retracted later

Quote:

..Note that I did not call him an idiot, I said that "based on what was said about him he sounds like an idiot"...

I will not, however, retract my statement about you. I still think it's valid and you should work on that.

Relative

0 Replies

Relative, did you notice the other thing I said?

Quote:

First thing I want to say is that I apologize for flaming you, Relative, and for making a fool of myself...heisenberg's uncertainty principle IS common knowledge and for some reason I didn't connect his name to the theory when mentioned.

However, the uncertainty principle does not apply to understanding "why" questions such as how consciousness exists or how the universe came to be...if I recall correctly it merely states that the better an objects position is known the less accurately it's velocity is known and vice versa. I am not familiar with how he derived this theory, I have not personally read any evidence to make me believe it yet (althouh that is not to saty tgat it doesnt exist) and so I am of course skeptical as everyone should be until they understand how the theory works...I know Einstein was skeptical of it as well.

So...the statement that you still feel is valid...is that I am the black sheep of my family?

twyvel,

Quote:

JLNobody, If consciousness is an emergent phenomena then Krishnamurti, Buddhism nondualism etc. etc. are false; consciousness cannot emerge from a fiction that it itself has created.

If objects of observation are observer dependent; have to be observed to exist as such, then the brain which is rarely observed does >not< give rise to consciousness, for cause and effect only come into existence upon observation. Consciousness has to be prior to that which is observed, prior to the observable uiniverse.

I fail to see the logic in your statement. It seems the word consciousness could be replaced with any other evolved trait, and then you would be saying that such things as sight, thinking, hearing, smell, and feelings are not emergent. Well, they must be...because they could not have existed before the organisms which possess them exist...and we know that these organisms have not always existed! So, we know for a fact that all of these properties, including self awareness, have not existed through all time.

Quote:

Stuh, just an intuition of the moment. Sorry for it's obscurity. I wanted to describe this in terms much grander than the biological evolution of mundane science. I wanted to couch the emergence of consciousness in more cosmic terms--hence the capital E for Evolution (and perhaps Emergence). Don't you ever get such urges for hyperboly?

What could be more grand than science? Is not science the result of humanity's attempt to describe, classify, and understand, to infinite detail, all things, at all times, in our universe?

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

What could be more grand than science?

Science is a human construction. The human mind is grander than science

stuh505 wrote:

the uncertainty principle does not apply to understanding "why" questions such as how consciousness exists

Roger Penrose (another name to be familiar with on this thread) would disagree (see The Emperor's New Mind, for example). He sees the problems of the mind being fundamentally at the quantum level. (And do yourself a favor by not dismissing this idea as "nonsense" or "illogical" or "idiotic" or "completely false" Wink

)

stuh505 wrote:

I have been working on algorthms to emulate human behavior and this has led me to the conclusion that nearly everytihng in our brain can be emulated accurately (on a rudimentary level)

Have you spent some time working on natural language understanding? Literally thousands of scientist-years of research have been put into this problem over the last five decades. We are no closer to an meta-understanding (i.e. and understanding of understanding) than we were when Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Sure, we can "emulate" NLU, but the rub is in the "rudimentary" part. Rudimentary emulation is by no means even a model of how things work, let alone an "understanding".

stuh505 wrote:

I don't think there ARE any experts in this field

An astute observation. But one that argues strongly for the complexity of the subject matter: if consciousness (self-awareness, if you prefer) were amenable to scientific inquiry, do you not suppose that there would, in fact, be experts around?

Frankly, the experts (so-called Wink

) are those scientists/philosophers mentioned in Koch (the ones whose positions you found to be largely illogical). Popper and Eccles (dualists who believe that brain-soul interactions are camouflaged by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, no less) Lucas Nagel and McGinn (folk who believe we can never understand consciousness) Dennett (who believes consciousness is an illusion) and Penrose (whose work to "prove" that human thought is non-algorithmic is a must-read) and Chalmers (who believes consciousness is ubiquitous) all have really, really good reasons to maintain their respective positions. Don't take them lightly.

In each case, however, there are "metaphysical" (i.e., religious) underpinnings to those positions. No doubt you will disagree with most or all of these articles of faith represented in the experts' positions. But please understand that your own faith in your own abilities, your faith in your own upbringing, and your faith in science all contribute to your own position. As you said yourself:

stuh505 wrote:

faith is required ... to believe something without enough evidence

Indeed.

0 Replies

stuh505

Quote:

I fail to see the logic in your statement. It seems the word consciousness could be replaced with any other evolved trait, and then you would be saying that such things as sight, thinking, hearing, smell, and feelings are not emergent. Well, they must be...because they could not have existed before the organisms which possess them exist...and we know that these organisms have not always existed! So, we know for a fact that all of these properties, including self awareness, have not existed through all time.

If it is the case that consciousness cannot be observed, that it is not objectifyable, then there exits an infinite regress of the subject, or that-which-observes, which renders this existence an illusion (subject-object dualism is recognized for the fiction that it is). Meaning that which is observed has no autonomy, is observer dependent, and is an emergent property, not of other emergent properties but of that which observes. It then is nonsensical to claim that an emergent phenomena such as the human body and/or brain can produce consciousness.

0 Replies

twyvel:
You say "It...is nonsensical to claim that....
the human body and/or brain can produce consciousnesss."
I have never seen such a nonsensical
statement regarding the nature of consciousness in my life. It certainly questions the credibility of your
non-dualism state of enlightenment, if THAT kind of
refutation can result.

0 Replies

jnhofzinser wrote:

stuh505 wrote:
What could be more grand than science?
Science is a human construction. The human mind is grander than science

bah, a matter of opinion and symantics. no sense in arguing over this one.

jnhofzinser wrote:

stuh505 wrote:
the uncertainty principle does not apply to understanding "why" questions such as how consciousness exists
Roger Penrose (another name to be familiar with on this thread) would disagree (see The Emperor's New Mind, for example). He sees the problems of the mind being fundamentally at the quantum level. (And do yourself a favor by not dismissing this idea as "nonsense" or "illogical" or "idiotic" or "completely false" )

I think that it is very likely that consciousness is fundamentally at the quantum level, althuogh I cannot say I think that it is or it isn't...I don't have enough information to make a decision, but it does sound like a plausible and likely hypothesis.

However...I firmly stand by my opinion that the uncertainty principle does not apply to understanding how consciousness exists. I made a typo in my last comment, I did not mean to say "why questions such as how consciousness exists", for this is a "how" question. What I meant to say was that in addition, "why" questions such as "why does consciousness exist" are also knowable.

I say this because it is entirely unneccessary to know the velocity and location of quanta in order to understand the sequence of events that must occur among quanta. Certainly, the uncertainty principle (if correct) might make it very difficult to measure and learn this information...but it in no way would prevent one from comprehending the answer once found.

Heisenberg wrote:

The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.
--Heisenberg, uncertainty paper, 1927

As you can see, this principle only deals with the precise simultaneous knowledge of momentum/position....NOT sequences of actions and reactions or events (which are answers to why and how questions).

jnhofzinser wrote:

stuh505 wrote:
I have been working on algorthms to emulate human behavior and this has led me to the conclusion that nearly everytihng in our brain can be emulated accurately (on a rudimentary level)
Have you spent some time working on natural language understanding? Literally thousands of scientist-years of research have been put into this problem over the last five decades. We are no closer to an meta-understanding (i.e. and understanding of understanding) than we were when Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Sure, we can "emulate" NLU, but the rub is in the "rudimentary" part. Rudimentary emulation is by no means even a model of how things work, let alone an "understanding".

The algorithm I describe would share little resemblance to modern attempts to make computers which understand language, because those programs are designed with language in mind...I am convinced that all kinds of learning follow the same basic algorithm, from learning language, to learning how to drive, whatever. I believe that I could write the rudimentary learning algorithm, which would allow a computer to learn in the same method as a human..without being hardcoded to be designed for any specific type of learning or understanding (which are really two completely different thigns anyway). However, since it would only be the rudimentary method for learning, it would not allow the computer to actually learn really advanced things such as language.

jnhofzinser wrote:

all have really, really good reasons to maintain their respective positions.

I'm not giong to delve into anyone's specific opinions right now...but just address this general statement. I'm sure they have their reasons, but if they are contradictory opinions, they must not be "really really good" reasons...and the nature of this situation would suggest that someone is jumping to conclusions without ample evidence.

twyvel wrote:

If it is the case that consciousness cannot be observed, that it is not objectifyable,

Although consciousness itself cannot be observed with our eyes, it's presence can surely be percieved.

twyvel wrote:

then there exits an infinite regress of the subject, or that-which-observes, which renders this existence an illusion (subject-object dualism is recognized for the fiction that it is).

An infinite regress as I understand it is an explanation that is in need of as much of an explanation is the original question to be explained. But in your statement, there is no argument being referenced...and so the term seems meaningless in this context to me.

Quote:

Meaning that which is observed has no autonomy, is observer dependent, and is an emergent property, not of other emergent properties but of that which observes.

The purpose of language is to communicate ideas succinctly but you seem to take pleasure in contorting your meaning in as many ways possible, so that most (I am sure) people who read them cannot make sense of them...why do you do this, so that people don't argue with what you say, simply because they don't know what you're talking about? Please, please...try to talk in a more understandable fashion.

It seems to translate to this:

"an object is a property which is dependent on the perciever and which has not always existed"

which still makes no sense to me.

Quote:

It then is nonsensical to claim that an emergent phenomena such as the human body and/or brain can produce consciousness.

Very bold statement...which cnotradicts all known information of the universe...with no evidence to support your statement! Bravo!

0 Replies

I am--comfortably--on the horns of a dilemma. On the one horn, I agree with Tywvel that the world AS WE KNOW IT is observer-dependent. No observer of the world as WE know it, no world as we know it. That's obvious. I even think that when I die, I will take this world, that I know, with me. Fortunately, I'll leave the rest of you with the world AS YOU KNOW IT. On the other horn, however, there is much to be said for the "fact" that if a neurologist stimulates a part of my brain I will experience a predeterminied experience or sensation. I believe that experience and brain are "objective facts" in the world (because when I die you will still be aware of them). But this means that ultimately such facts are subjectively grounded. They exist as experiences. They cannot be otherwise. At least I cannot imagine what else they could be. And I don't know anyone else who does. So how do I live in a world in which both idealism (subjectivity) physicalism (objectivity) make sense? Do they contradict (cancel out) each other? Can I live with the contradiction? Frankly, I can. To me it is ALL illusory in the sense that it is the product of human epistemological processes. As Schopenhauer put it, the world is my idea and my representation to myself, and yours too. This includes the emergence of consciousness from physical processes and the existence of physical processes as mental experience. This is, as I understand it, the non-dualistic solution. But to be completely non-dualist, I must confess that this solution is, at different levels, both right and wrong.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

What could be more grand than science?
jnhofzinser wrote:
Science is a human construction. The human mind is grander than science
bah, a matter of opinion and symantics.

Hardly. That science is a product of human enterprise is a historical fact. And there is certain logic to the proposition that the creator must be greater than the creature. Unless, of course, we are talking about the religion of (uppercase S -- to borrow from JLN) "Science" -- nothing could possibly be grander than that! Rolling Eyes

:wink:

0 Replies

JLN:
I am both surprised and pleased that you are saying that the non-dualist solution is not always satisfactory to you, because you see it as
BOTH right and wrong . Are we not veering back to a dualism solution of things??!!.

stuh505:
Among your excellent comments on twyvel's unique treatment and use of language, I was very glad to see that you too, pointed out the utter nonsense enveloping his reference to non-relationship of consciousness to the brain/body.

0 Replies

Alikimr, one of the benefits to gained from participation here is to learn to hear and speak not from the ego, to try to be open and "one" with the other, as much as possible. I assure you that you did not read Twyvel or me with an open mind, nor did you do so carefully. Please read both statements again. I can understand why you did not understand Tywvel's position. It is very subtle, and contrary to our cultural conditioning, but mine was not. You just construed it carelessly.

0 Replies

JLNObody wrote:

I am--comfortably--on the horns of a dilemma. One the one horn, I agree with Tywvel that the world AS WE KNOW IT is observer-dependent. No observer of the world as WE know it, no world as we know it. That's obvious. I even think that when I die, I will take this world, that I know, with me.

I see two possible interpretations for your meaning:

a) "A person's perspective on the world is linked to the person". If this is what you mean, then this is already contained within the definition of perspective...and it is not necessary to simply define words for no reason. This also has nothing to do with the discussion of consciousness!

b) "Nothing exists unless there is a person to percieve it". ie, if a tree falls and nobody hears it, it doesn't make a sound. This was once a philosophical question, but anyone who continues to wonder questions of this matter in todays world with today's common knowledge...is an idiot. This also has nothign to do with consciousness.

Quote:

I believe that experience and brain are "objective facts" in the world (because when I die you will still be aware of them).

yes, obviously.

Quote:

But this means that ultimately such facts are subjectively grounded. They exist as experiences. They cannot be otherwise. At least I cannot imagine what else they could be. And I don't know anyone else who does.

Your grammar suffers to the point where this statement is incomprehensible. Below I have replaced the pronouns with their references, and this highlights the grammatical errors which make your true meaning confused:

But [the fact that experience and brain are objective facts] means that ultimately [experience and brain] are subjectively grounded. [experience and brain] exist as experiences. [experience and brain] cannot be [any way other than experience]. At least I cannot imagine what else [experience and brain] could be. And I don't know anyone else who does [imagine what else [other than experience] experience and brain could be].

1) you not only contradict yourself when you say that something is objective and subjective at the same time, but you say it as if one proves the other!

2) brain is not an experience!

3) experience is not a "way"

4) even if experience were a "way", you have not proven that it is the only way (use some inductive reasoning if you are going to make a solid statement like this) or if you aren't SO sure that you can prove it inductively, then give good evidence for it being the case deductively...

Without understanding so much of the beginning, I will not bother to analyze the rest of your statement. However, if you explain yourself, I will be happy to re-think it.

jnhofzinser,

your comment is hilarious. not only have you wasted time to continue arguing over a trivial piece of information which serves no purpose to know the answer to, but you have done so at the expense of not answering other more controversial and relavent subjects to the topic of consciousness.

alright, i have nothing better to do...if you really want to argue over such symantics...so be it: grand has many meanings, including 'large', 'impressive', 'wonderful', 'complete', and 'higher in rank'.

Most of these definitions are relative to the speaker, and thus, it becomes a matter of opinion and symmantics.

Drop it.

0 Replies

Stuh505. I appreciate, or I guess I should appreciate, your extensive comments. But, frankly, I do not find them helpful. I do not want to call you obnoxious, because it may be only here that you are. Please do not hassle me further. You are like a flea that bites. Such a nuissance. Oh, and your free use of the term, "idiot," is most disrespectful to others.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

your comment is hilarious.

Thanks -- yours is pathetic.

Your basic lack of manners, knowledge and logic makes it very, very difficult to take you seriously. Good luck with your algorithms.

0 Replies

Science and consciousness
Science is our present compilation of knowledge about everything. There are some people who say that we're not really experiencing reality, but I disagree since we are sensing what is a part of or a product of reality. Science goes beyond our senses in a way since it consists of things which we can not sense. How else could they have known about neutrinos then?

Some people say that biology is not true science though Laughing

.

As for consciousness, I believe that it's as "grand" as everyone makes it to be. Matter might be a form of concentrated energy and life a result of organic compounds joining each other. Maybe our consciousness is formed by these concentrated energies (which are the organic compounds) contacting one another and converting other energies, forming our mind. All these stuffs result in our "essence".
With our consciousness, we are able to recognize/reason, be more aware, and be more a part of everything or the world out there. I think that in death we only flow but in life we have these certain abilities to be more connected to the everything that we are a part of.
OK, yeah so it's just a hypothesis, but you know, food for thought :wink:.

I do sort of believe that, perhaps, life and consciousness are what organic compounds strive to be. I guess I'm more of a monist than a dualist. Rolling Eyes

And yes, we are making progress.

0 Replies

Welcome, Ray. Nice post. But I have to give it more thought.

0 Replies

A few general comments from a veteran "consciousness chaser".

Firstly may I congratulate jnhofzinser on the quality of his responses. The "unholy trinity" (JLN, twyvel and fresco) may need to undergo a name change!

For me the central issue is how the word "consciousness" is being used.

From a "scientific viewpoint" we seem to see this as a form of "advanced information handling" which gives us an evolutionary avantage over "lesser species". Once the concept "information" is advocated this paves the way for (crude) "neural network modelling" including quantum aspects thereof (see Hammerof via Chalmers website).

However, from the "philosophical point of view" the concept of "information" tends to pre-suppose an objective reality which has now been seriously questioned by Heisenbergs principle (together with its extension as "The Personal Equation" in non physics domains). This leads to at least two basic themes (a) the holistic/nondualistic path in which "consciousness" becomes a mystical "creative essence" where all cognitive possibilities could be potential realities or (b) the "systems dynamics" path taken by Capra et al, where "consciousness" is merely another level of "organizational process" involved in the maintenance of "structure" common to all "life". (We should note here that the usual assumptions about "entropy" "order" "information" and "time" are not considered to be a priori )

It may be that JLN's dilemma above is an aspect of the differences of usage such as these.

0 Replies

My my stuh505 ..... you certainly have some odd.....

PERCEPTIONS

0 Replies

I came here expecting somewhat of a symposium where knowledge could be shared, but now I see that it is nothing more than a commonground for a bunch of bumbling idiots. I hope you all have a fun time making up stuff and believing it happily.

0 Replies

Good riddance.

0 Replies

Progress in consciousness?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know