On Consciousness

[Zeuzzz]

Given that everything in the known universe is materialistic, how can a non-materialistic one be justified ?

Your mind doesn't seem too materialistic to me, even though can be explained extremely well by physical neuroscience.

The gravitational field is in no way materialistic, as another example.

Or the plank scale of quantum phenomena, where the worlds of materialism and mathematical abstraction get seemingly blurred via quantum nonlocality, and general material befuzzlement in general.

 

[PixyMisa]

Your mind doesn't seem too materialistic to me, even though can be explained extremely well by physical neuroscience.

Well, there's your problem.

The gravitational field is in no way materialistic, as another example.

It is in every way materialistic. You just fail to grasp the concept.

Or the plank scale of quantum phenomena, where the worlds of materialism and mathematical abstraction get seemingly blurred via quantum nonlocality, and general material befuzzlement in general.

Nope.

 

[PixyMisa]

Consciousness like running is a human activity.

Also cats, rabbits, monkeys, some computer programs...

Some may be different at it than others. This may be selected for if it leads to better breeding success.

Yes.

Becoming conscious of that of which we are currently unconscious is not impossible.

We do that all the time. It's called attention.

 

[Zeuzzz]

It is in every way materialistic.

Explain:

a) the materialistic properties of the gravitational field (not its effects on materialistic things, the field itself)
b) the physical mechanism by which it works.
c) why you presume I fail to grasp the concept.
d) Why I put a d) option.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Nope.

Do you make a habit of this? Just stating someone wrong, not explaining why, and then either avoiding the question later or leaving? I seem to be noticing a trend.

PS: Thanks for supplying your specific field of interest before, only just remembered, will have to scroll back.

 

[Mr. Scott]

[qimg]http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/182386_466778183350170_1671538548_n.jpg[/qimg]

Turing machines.

Invented from our consciousness.

Not conscious in their own right.

People, conscious in their own right, invented by the unconscious process of evolution by mutation and natural selection.

Saturn rockets (that take us to the moon) invented by people who strain to jump a meter.

Atom bombs invented by people who couldn't push down a small building.

Some day we may develop machines with such hyper-consciousness over ours, that they'd be like the a-bomb's physical strength compared to our strength.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Because.... Look, a monkey!

...but were you really counting the passes between the players in white shirts?

 

[Zeuzzz]

People, conscious in their own right, invented by the unconscious process of evolution by mutation and natural selection

Just how unconscious evolution really is in the grand scheme of things is a topic worthy of serious debate of late. We have long passed the sort of selfish gene approach Dakwkins et al proliferated, which locates the ultimate power over our health in the untouchable realm of molecular structure, rather than in our own conscious actions and decisions.

(Uber)Epigenetics
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=238577

 

[PixyMisa]

Explain:

a) the materialistic properties of the gravitational field (not its effects on materialistic things, the field itself)

That's it. Necessary and sufficient.

If you think anything else is required, you simply don't understand materialism (or science).

 

[PixyMisa]

Do you make a habit of this? Just stating someone wrong

Only when they are wrong.

not explaining why

Only if I have already explained why, more than once. For some users, this applies to everything they say.

and then either avoiding the question later

I don't do that. However, if the question is based on a false premise, all I can do is point out that the question is also wrong.

or leaving?

I have a life. Well, no, I don't, but I have a job at a startup company and my own startup company, so I may disappear for days, weeks, even months at a time when things get hectic. Sorry, but there are many other very capable posters who can tell you that you are wrong.

I seem to be noticing a trend.

No.

PS: Thanks for supplying your specific field of interest before, only just remembered, will have to scroll back.

Computational sociology? Yeah, well. My field is computing; I have no formal qualifications in sociology at all. It's just something I fell into from the commercial side of things - the work I was already doing coincided almost exactly with what was required for the research project.

 

[PixyMisa]

Just how unconscious evolution really is in the grand scheme of things is a topic worthy of serious debate of late.

Serious, but very, very brief.

 

[Zeuzzz]

That's it. Necessary and sufficient.

If you think anything else is required, you simply don't understand materialism (or science).

have you discovered the graviton and are holding back on us?

 

[!Kaggen]

Also cats, rabbits, monkeys, some computer programs...


Yes.


We do that all the time. It's called attention.

Would this not imply consciousness is an ability which has and may still evolve?
In which case how do you propose to program an ability to evolve through natural selection into a computer ?

 

[PixyMisa]

have you discovered the graviton and are holding back on us?

Why do you think that is relevant?

 

[Mr. Scott]

Just how unconscious evolution really is in the grand scheme of things is a topic worthy of serious debate of late.

Share with us your evidence that evolution is unconscious.

 

[PixyMisa]

Would this not imply consciousness is an ability which has and may still evolve?

Of course.

In which case how do you propose to program an ability to evolve through natural selection into a computer ?

At least I'm in good company:

On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

-- Charles Babbage

 

[!Kaggen]

Of course.




At least I'm in good company:

On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

-- Charles Babbage

Well there is your problem, evolution is not reducible since it takes place on the level of living organisms and their environment. The interactions at this level are far from practically predictable.

No wonder you don't get epigenetics.

On the other hand we know the agenda of computationalists is to force a simplifying of the world to simple reducible interactions so that their computers can programmed with all the simple correct data so they spew out the simple correct answer.

This is simply woo at its worse.

Pixy Misa admit it your a Frank Tipler disciple.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well there is your problem, evolution is not reducible since it takes place on the level of living organisms and their environment.

That doesn't follow.

The interactions at this level are far from practically predictable.

So?

No wonder you don't get epigenetics.

I get epigenetics just fine. It simply doesn't support your strange notions.

On the other hand we know the agenda of computationalists is to force a simplifying of the world to simple reducible interactions so that their computers can programmed with all the simple correct data so they spew out the simple correct answer.

No, reality consists of reducible interactions.

This is simply woo at its worse.

Maybe it is, but no-one actually believes what you insist they believe, so that's irrelevant.

Pixy Misa admit it your a Frank Tipler disciple.

His Omega Point stuff? Philip Jose Farmer did it better, frankly.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Pixy, I get the impression your a Hitchens fan.

It would be extremely pertinent to watch this.

His tribute video from a cosmologist that has his head screwed on so tight im scared his brain will explode.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=238636

 

[Belz...]

Your mind doesn't seem too materialistic to me, even though can be explained extremely well by physical neuroscience.

The gravitational field is in no way materialistic, as another example.

I have no idea what you're talking about, but you seem to agree with me.

Or the plank scale of quantum phenomena, where the worlds of materialism

and mathematical abstraction get seemingly blurred via quantum nonlocality, and general material befuzzlement in general.

I have no idea what you're talking about, but you seem confused.