Consciousness.....a basic rule of physics

[JimBenArm]

Serious answer: doronshadmi seems to be obsessed with the idea of dualism, and thus uses hyphens to emphasize the "uni" part of universe and the "con" (as in pro and con) part of context.

Slightly less serious answer, but intended by my post nonetheless: Something weird in a sea of weird isn't really odd at all.

Okay. Thanks.

 

[Dancing David]

1) The obsession is in the eyes of the reader (as can clearly be seen by your reply style http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4125204&postcount=85 to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4125175&postcount=84 ) .

2) Since we are talking about consciousness , we are dealing first of all with something that has self-reference.

3) From this point of view, we actually deal with something that enables to integrate between different things (whether they are internal or external of it) as a basis for conclusion, decision, etc … in order to react both on its internal and external environments, as can be seen in this preliminary model ( http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/MonadCK.pdf ).

4) Concepts like Universe, Context etc … were invented by things that have consciousness, in order to express some essential sense, notion about the experience of reality.

5) Furthermore, these conscious things choosed to integrate between concepts like Unity and Verses (in the case of Universe) and between Connection and Text (in the case of Context) in order to communicate between them.

Those are all very nice but they are just what they are, the universe is what it is. Human thoughts and words are approximation (idiomatic and self referential) of the behavior of the universe.

So you can add hyphens, but if they only have personal meaning then they do not add to communication.

 

[westprog]

Some one (I don't remember his name) wrote something like this:

It is quit trivial to predict (by calculation) the accurate path of the body of a dead bird thrown in the air.

It is maybe impossible to predict (by calculation) the accurate path of a living one.


Do you think that "I have no idea" is closely related to the problem mentioned above?

We can, in principle, imagine that if we knew all the physical processes going on inside the living bird, we'd be as able to predict its path as with the dead one. However, that explanation leaves no place for consciousness. We don't even know whether birds are conscious are not.

 

[The Man]

You could try.

I can do more then that.

Yes.

Please show how the consequence of gravity is dependent on consciousness, unless of course you are just playing semantic games about the meaning of words like “consequences”.

No. Simply declaring it irrelevant doesn't make it so.

A point you should take for yourself and perhaps expand it to included things you simply declare as inarguable.

Given that there is no consciousness my point stands. I don't need to prove that conciousness has not always existed. That said, you have no evidence that it has. I can't prove a negative.

Your claim is that given no consciousness there is no difference between something (like consciousness) and nothing (no consciousness), so given the lack of consciousness is no different then given consciousness. It is your self inconsistent point that is inarguable, but you can keep trying.

 

[The Man]

I can't argue with anything that you've said. The problem is that it is irrelevant. Anything that does not have consciousness (yes we can get into a semantical argument but let's stick to the conventional view) doesn't care. It doesn't appreciate. There is no meaning. Planets and rocks and dust don't know that they exist and don't care one way or the other.

• We can conceptualize (a) something.
• We can conceptualize (b) nothing.

When we do this it is human nature to do so from the perspective of our own consciousness. Take that away and the difference between a and b is null. It is only consciousness that can deduce a difference between the two. End of story.


One more thing, sorry if I'm sounding snarky. I don't mean to. It's a philosophical position. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It's just that it's my hill and these are my beans.

Planets or rocks do not need to “know that they exist”, “care” or “appreciate” in order for there to be consequences of their existence or lack thereof. You seem to be limiting things to “the perspective of our own consciousness”.

 

[RandFan]

Please show how the consequence of gravity is dependent on consciousness...

Not a position that I hold.

Your claim is that given no consciousness there is no difference between something (like consciousness) and nothing (no consciousness), so given the lack of consciousness is no different then given consciousness. It is your self inconsistent point that is inarguable...

No. If there is no consciousness then there is no appreciable difference.

 

[RandFan]

Planets or rocks do not need to “know that they exist”, “care” or “appreciate” in order for there to be consequences of their existence or lack thereof.

What difference is there between consequences and no consequences? You seem to think that is important for some reason.

You seem to be limiting things to “the perspective of our own consciousness”.

I only limit the significance to consciousness.

There is no significance of existence to the planets or rocks.

 

[The Man]

So the existence (or specific presence) of gravity only has consequences “to a conscious entity”?

Yes.

Please show how the consequence of gravity is dependent on consciousness, unless of course you are just playing semantic games about the meaning of words like “consequences”.

Not a position that I hold.

So I guess you’re just playing semantic games about the meaning of words like “Yes”.

No. If there is no consciousness then there is no appreciable difference.

So the self inconsistency of your claim does not matter as long as you keep making that claim and now reverting back to your requirement that the difference be “appreciable”?

What difference is there between consequences and no consequences? You seem to think that is important for some reason.

If you do not think that difference is important then bash yourself in the head with a hammer. Now you might “care” or “appreciate” the consequences of being bashed by the hammer where the hammer does not, but there will still be consequences for both.

I only limit the significance to consciousness.

Where as I limit the significance of consciousness to consciousness.

There is no significance of existence to the planets or rocks.

But there is significance to the existence of the planets or rocks.


We can play all the semantic games you want, but it only demonstrates that you are more then willing to argue about a point you claimed was inarguable.

 

[RandFan]

So I guess you’re just playing semantic games about the meaning of words like “Yes”.

No. You are playing the game. I'm talking about consequences that have meaning. You think there is significance to space time outside of the realm of consciousness. Significance is a human construct. That something happens doesn't mean that it is significant absent consciousness.

So the self inconsistency of your claim does not matter as long as you keep making that claim and now reverting back to your requirement that the difference be “appreciable”?

It's not self inconsistent. Asserting ad nauseam that it is doesn't make it so.

If you do not think that difference is important then bash yourself in the head with a hammer. Now you might “care” or “appreciate” the consequences of being bashed by the hammer where the hammer does not, but there will still be consequences for both.

You make my argument for me. I care only because I'm conscious. When I cease being conscience I won't care. Neither will you and that is the salient point.

Where as I limit the significance of consciousness to consciousness.

The significance or limits of consciousness is not at issue. If you are interested in that I would suggest you start another thread.

But there is significance to the existence of the planets or rocks.

Really? Prove that without consciousness.

We can play all the semantic games you want, but it only demonstrates that you are more then willing to argue about a point you claimed was inarguable.

I'm not playing a semantical game. I can argue that there is no gravity but that doesn't make the argument reasonable and it isn't reasonable to say that the existence of gravity is arguable. You can believe in anything you want but I don't have to pretend that it is reasonable.

Just because you flap your gums doesn't mean that you are making logically valid arguments.

 

[The Man]

No. You are playing the game. I'm talking about consequences that have meaning. You think there is significance to space time outside of the realm of consciousness. Significance is a human construct. That something happens doesn't mean that it is significant absent consciousness.

You assert that you are not applying semantics (the study of meaning) by claiming to be “talking about consequences that have meaning”?

So now you want to play semantic games about “significance” and “meaning”


“That something happens” is sufficient to make it “significant” even “absent consciousness”.

It's not self inconsistent. Asserting ad nauseam that it is doesn't make it so.

You are claiming that based on the difference between consciousness and non-consciousness (your “significance”) that given non-consciousness there is no difference between consciousness and non-consciousness. Repeating that “ad nauseam” does not make it any less self inconsistent.

You make my argument for me. I care only because I'm conscious. When I cease being conscience I won't care. Neither will you and that is the salient point.

I’ve got news for you, I don’t care now (about a lot of things) yet I am still consciousness. Caring may require consciousness but consciousness does not infer caring. Try a different consideration; hold your breath until you pass out, at that time you will begin to breathe again, although you are unconsciousness. The existence of oxygen in the atmosphere is still “significant” to your existence in spite of your lack of consciousness.

The significance or limits of consciousness is not at issue. If you are interested in that I would suggest you start another thread.

I don’t know what thread you think you’re on but this one is about “Consciousness.....a basic rule of physics” making “The significance or limits of consciousness” precisely the issue at hand. If you want to discuss something else then “I would suggest you start another thread”.

Really? Prove that without consciousness.

Well then do not go to sleep tonight or you will stop breathing, your body temperature will become unregulated, all the rocks and the planet will disappear. If you should wake up tomorrow then it proves “that without consciousness” at least you still existed. Should you find a planet under you and some rocks around you then “without consciousness” they still existed as well.

I'm not playing a semantical game. I can argue that there is no gravity but that doesn't make the argument reasonable and it isn't reasonable to say that the existence of gravity is arguable. You can believe in anything you want but I don't have to pretend that it is reasonable.

Apparently you do “pretend that it is reasonable” because that is precisely your argument that “the existence of gravity” or its “significance” (if you keep playing your semantic game) is dependent on consciousness.

You think there is significance to space time outside of the realm of consciousness

Just because you flap your gums doesn't mean that you are making logically valid arguments.

Perhaps, but when “you flap your gums” you clearly demonstrate that you are not “making logically valid arguments”.

 

[RandFan]

“That something happens” is sufficient to make it “significant” even “absent consciousness”.

Why is it sgnificant? Significant to whom? Significant to what?

 

[doronshadmi]

We can, in principle, imagine that if we knew all the physical processes going on inside the living bird, we'd be as able to predict its path as with the dead one. However, that explanation leaves no place for consciousness. We don't even know whether birds are conscious are not.

Two quotations:

1) Can you prove that any observation has no influence (what so ever) on the observed?

2) How can the observed be known, if there is no interaction between be observed and the observer.

I'll give you some example:

We can use passive tools like thermo detectors in order to research something in the darkness, by simply get his body temperature, which enables us to distinguish between him and his environment, which may have a different temperature than him.

The fact that there is more than a one state of temperature is a direct result of the asymmetric states of temperatures that enables hot bodies to radiance their hit to a colder environment and a part of it is detected by thermo detectors, where this detection actually changes the pattern of the detected radiance.

So also in the case of passive observation, any measurement is based on a game called "changing the observed".

This was a macro example. By a micro example, we actually cannot predict when some electron jumps form one level of energy to another level of energy, and also in this case our measurements tools have an influence on the observed.

So, please show us even a single physical theory that enables to research something (macro or micro) by totally ignore the interactions between the observed and the observer.

 

[doronshadmi]

Those are all very nice but they are just what they are, the universe is what it is. Human thoughts and words are approximation (idiomatic and self referential) of the behavior of the universe.

So you can add hyphens, but if they only have personal meaning then they do not add to communication.

Again, why are you looking at things as if they are a 0,1 interaction where there is nothing in between?

Or in other words, why "...if they only have personal meaning" (or its complement that is "...if they only have a non-personal meaning") has to be considered as the only possible states?

 

[doronshadmi]

Heh, now I am accused of dualism.

"Knowing others is wisdom;
Knowing the self is enlightenment."

And you use a clear dichtomy batween "others" and "self".

In that case, please show us how "others" and "self" are compared with each other, in the first place.

 

[doronshadmi]

Sure if you account for all the relevant influences, launch trajectory, wind speed and even the rotation of the Earth (depending on the distance).

Again the same requirement applies, but now you need to consider stimuli, response, neural pathways as well as , launch trajectory, wind speed and even the rotation of the Earth (depending on the distance).

It does not change the fact that a living bird's path is much more complex than the path of it dead body thrown in the air.

Furthermore, you have missed the most important word in my post, which is "to predict", which means that indeed the same requirements apply, but the requirements of what (or who)?

Do you not think that “not so complicated then very complicated” is a better description of the “problem” you mentioned then "I have no idea"?

Yes, we may have some idea, where completely no idea, or a complete idea are nothing but extreme cases and rare (and dramatic).

 

[doronshadmi]

Yes, but his is a singular dualism.

No, it is a singular X-alism, where X is any standard or non-standard element that can be found in [0,1].

 

[ddt]

No, it is a singular X-alism, where X is any standard or non-standard element that can be found in [0,1].

So, pray tell us, what is a half-alism? Or a one-third-alism?

(for the less mathematically inclined: [0, 1] is the interval of all real numbers between 0 and 1).

Oh, and may I remind you there's some unanswered questions to you in the Deeper than primes thread? We're all anxiously awaiting clarification.

 

[The Man]

Why is it sgnificant?

Because that is one of the meanings of “significant”: of consequence (or the outcome of something occurring earlier)

Significant to whom?

To whom it happens to.

Significant to what?

To what it happens to.


To clarify, things happen all the time that we are not conscious of. In fact most of the functioning of our bodies that enable us to have what we perceive as consciousness, we are not conscious of. Without the significance of these unconscious consequences we would not have what we perceive as consciousness. So our consciousness depends on these unconscious consequences and they do not depend on our consciousness. The only way we can become conscious of those unconscious consequences (as well as others that our consciousness does not depend on) is because they persist despite our lack of consciousness of them. Also, when we lose consciousness the only way we can regain consciousness is again due the persistence of these unconscious consequences despite our current lack of consciousness. So what we perceive as consciousness is only significant (or consequential) due to in some cases a specific lack of consciousness or conscious involvement. How long do you think your consciousness would last if your breathing (or other body functions) were entirely dependent upon your conscious involvement? Alternatively, were you, unknowingly, to be at ground zero just before an atomic blast you would be vaporized, your consciousness would end before your conscious recognition of that impending consequence. In short consciousness is always dependent on consequences while consequences are not always dependent on what we perceive as consciousness.

 

[doronshadmi]

So, pray tell us, what is a half-alism? Or a one-third-alism?

(for the less mathematically inclined: [0, 1] is the interval of all real numbers between 0 and 1).

Oh, and may I remind you there's some unanswered questions to you in the Deeper than primes thread? We're all anxiously awaiting clarification.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4061617&postcount=2161

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4054871&postcount=2116

 

[doronshadmi]

In short consciousness is always dependent on consequences while consequences are not always dependent on what we perceive as consciousness.

Not if consciousness is not an 0,1 game.

In that case, any given degree of [0,1] is a possible state of consciousness, where no state totally depends on other states.

Furthermore, some consciousness is usually a collection of [0,1] elements, related to each other by several distinct states, that are dynamically changed.

This flexibility is essential to the survival (and reproduction) of complex organism in a non-trivial environment.

In my opinion, any 0,1 dichotomist model of consciousness is nothing but a sterile viewpoint of this concept.