Split Thread Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore....

[Fudbucker]

Despite it being off topic? Go ahead. Let's see how that works out.

Well, now you're just playing forum cop. I thought you had "pretty good knowledge of consciousness".

 

[acbytesla]

Everything is unproven, before it is proven. Little organisms we can't see making us sick? Laughable.

This is an incredibly ironic answer Fud. Before man knew about those tiny invisible organisms, he explained it as curses or the act of the devil or demons. Before we understood thunder and lightning or earthquakes or volcanos, man said they were caused by gods. Those answers NEVER EVER EVER got man closer to understanding anything.

Yes, it is true that everything that is proven was at one time unproven. Please tell me the use of answering one unproven question with an unproven entity? You're simply appealing to bigger mystery, not actually answering the question.

I am admitting we don't know. I think we should look in areas that might seem ridiculous. Ridiculous things sometimes turn out to be true. Other people (not just cranks) are starting to go this route: https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/universe-conscious-ncna772956

Ridiculous ideas by definition are deserving of ridicule. I'd also correct you that people are just starting to go this route. I'd say people have been taking this route since there has been people.

And crazy ideas that end up working have reasons why they work.

 

[Fudbucker]

This is an incredibly ironic answer Fud. Before man knew about those tiny invisible organisms, he explained it as curses or the act of the devil or demons.

There were also "Scientific" explanations given. Bad air was one of them. It was surprising how entrenched these beliefs were. Well, not that surprising if you spend any time trolling people on sites like Breitbart.

Before we understood thunder and lightning or earthquakes or volcanos, man said they were caused by gods. Those answers NEVER EVER EVER got man closer to understanding anything.

True, and I'm not saying "god did it" when it comes to consciousness. But I am curious about some ideas that have dualistic implications, and I've always been a sucker for idealism, which pretty much requires some overarching intelligence (call it god for lack of a better word) to keep the whole dream from falling apart

Yes, it is true that everything that is proven was at one time unproven. Please tell me the use of answering one unproven question with an unproven entity?

It happens all the time: What's the leading candidate for Dark Matter? WIMP's. Have WIMP's been proven yet? No.

You're simply appealing to bigger mystery, not actually answering the question.

Solving a bigger mystery, might answer the question.

Ridiculous ideas by definition are deserving of ridicule.

Until they work. How much more ridiculous can you get then Schroedinger's Cat? Even Einstein was appalled by QM. But it worked.

I'd also correct you that people are just starting to go this route. I'd say people have been taking this route since there has been people.

I'd say it's a lot more mainstream now. Max Tegmark is very well respected. Check out his Mathematical Universe theory.

And crazy ideas that end up working have reasons why they work.

And reasons why they were considered crazy.

 

[acbytesla]

There were also "Scientific" explanations given. Bad air was one of them. It was surprising how entrenched these beliefs were. Well, not that surprising if you spend any time trolling people on sites like Breitbart.

Bad air is much closer to the truth. Then the next question is what is bad about the air that causes those illness. At least by suggesting that the air is the reason, you have offered a line of inquiry to follow. When you say it is a miracle, you're done.

True, and I'm not saying "god did it" when it comes to consciousness. But I am curious about some ideas that have dualistic implications, and I've always been a sucker for idealism, which pretty much requires some overarching intelligence (call it god for lack of a better word) to keep the whole dream from falling apart.

I don't have a clue what this means.

It happens all the time: What's the leading candidate for Dark Matter? WIMP's. Have WIMP's been proven yet? No.

I grant you this but with a caveat. Scientists are only postulating a possible line of inquiry. And then they get to work proving it and if they can't they move on to another theory. When one refers to something miraculous or supernatural, one has immediately ended the inquiry since man is only able to investigate the natural or material world.

Solving a bigger mystery, might answer the question.

Fine. Tell us how we can prove the supernatural or divine. Do we pray for an answer?

Until they work. How much more ridiculous can you get then Schroedinger's Cat? Even Einstein was appalled by QM. But it worked.

You're confusing Einstein's opposition to Quantum mechanics. Schrodinger's cat was as much a joke about how quantum mechanics might work for atomic particles, it doesn't work for large items.

And reasons why they were considered crazy.

The problem isn't necessarily about crazy ideas as it is about using mysteries that have pretty much zero chance of being proven. Miracles are necessarily divine or supernatural and therefore beyond investigation. It ends inquiry as opposed to theories that are the beginning of inquiry.

 

[Oystein]

I think it would be a catastrophic failure if materialism continues to come up empty trying to explain something as fundamental as consciousness. I would eventually start looking at other theories, wouldn't you?

I haven't read up on the latest research in the last 20 years, but my impression at the end of the 90s was that progress is being made constantly, aided by advancing computer capabilities.
That is somewhat similar to the problem of controlled nuclear fusion: it's already understood in principle, progress is steady, and the amount of work still ahead, and the capacities needed before we get there are also understood at least in rough outline.
I am fairly convinced I'll see both prototype conscious machines and prototype fusion reactors before my lights go out. Another 20 years ought to be plenty of time.

Not quite 30 years, Douglas Hofstadter, in "Gödel Escher Bach" made prediction about how long it will take till chess programs beat the world champion. Turned out he was far too pessimistic, it happened way sooner than this AI expert thought.

I think the problem is with you, Fudbucker: you don't understand consciousness, and you project your own ignorance on others.

 

[MikeG]

All 100% correct, Oystein, but I think we should be careful about allowing Fudbucker to straw-man the entire conversation with his trivial and illogical aside.

 

[Oystein]

And so you will be telling me how the brain produces consciousness? Or at least a rough sketch of the causal mechanism? Or at least what the word itself actually means?

Until then, I will continue to point out this glaring flaw.

Waiiiit a second, you don't know what the word "consciousness" means, but you demand to have us explain how it works?

I could turn around on you and say that theism, nor metaphysics nor dualism, will ever explain how prelzinism works, and are therefore all to be rejected. Hell, there isn't even a known meaning to the word - I blame it on theism!

The failure to even know what you are talking about - what consciousness is, when you use the word, in your own mind - is your failure.

 

[The Big Dog]

I haven't read up on the latest research in the last 20 years, but my impression at the end of the 90s was that progress is being made constantly, aided by advancing computer capabilities.
That is somewhat similar to the problem of controlled nuclear fusion: it's already understood in principle, progress is steady, and the amount of work still ahead, and the capacities needed before we get there are also understood at least in rough outline.
I am fairly convinced I'll see both prototype conscious machines and prototype fusion reactors before my lights go out. Another 20 years ought to be plenty of time.

Not quite 30 years, Douglas Hofstadter, in "Gödel Escher Bach" made prediction about how long it will take till chess programs beat the world champion. Turned out he was far too pessimistic, it happened way sooner than this AI expert thought.

I think the problem is with you, Fudbucker: you don't understand consciousness, and you project your own ignorance on others.

Speculation followed by a non sequitur followed by a personal attack.

oy vey

 

[SOdhner]

If materialism leads to an absurd conclusion, like the existence of conscious pieces of meat, it's devastating for the theory.

Am I the only one that doesn't find "conscious pieces of meat" to be an absurd conclusion?

I mean, they're all around me. I am one. Why would I find it absurd? This seems like an argument from incredulity, like he's just trying to word it in a way that sounds strange even though it's an incredibly normal thing.

Calling them "pieces of meat" makes them sound like dead slabs of steak or something, and I agree that would be absurd. But we're talking about living brains, right? That's not absurd at all. I see critters with tiny little simple "brains", like bugs, that show very simple and limited behavior. Then I see the more complex ones show more complex behavior. Once you get to fancy enough brains, you've got really fancy complicated stuff including consciousness. This seems like a logical and observable progression.

Do I know all the mechanics of it? Nope. But that doesn't make it absurd. Will we ever understand it? I think we will, but that's not really important. If humans had been wiped out by a plague before we ever understood photosynthesis would that mean that it was impossible? After all, if materialism leads to an absurd conclusion, like the existence of vegetables that eat sunlight, it's devastating for the theory.

Some stuff we have already figured out. Some stuff we will probably figure out later. Some stuff we won't. That has no bearing on whether or not science is a useful tool or what is true. I can make almost anything sound absurd.

And to bring this all back to the topic at hand, this is one of the things that probably prevented me from remaining religious. This sort of incredulous "are you saying that fish somehow turned into monkeys?" thing worked on me for a little while but as soon as I started swatting down those arguments in areas where I disagreed with them I also started to recognize them coming from my own side. This very quickly whittled away at the foundations of religious belief.

 

[acbytesla]

That is somewhat similar to the problem of controlled nuclear fusion: it's already understood in principle, progress is steady, and the amount of work still ahead, and the capacities needed before we get there are also understood at least in rough outline.
I am fairly convinced I'll see both prototype conscious machines and prototype fusion reactors before my lights go out. Another 20 years ought to be plenty of time.

Off topic... but my guess is no, you won't see a commercial nuclear fusion reactor in the next 30 years. Still, way too many hurdles since the longest controlled fusion reaction has been under 2 minutes. I'd bet on Thorium Fluoride Molten Salt Reactors though within the next 15 years.

 

[StackOverflow]

Speculation followed by a non sequitur followed by a personal attack.

oy vey

'k

 

[The Big Dog]

'k

'k

'k

 

[Fudbucker]

I haven't read up on the latest research in the last 20 years, but my impression at the end of the 90s was that progress is being made constantly, aided by advancing computer capabilities.
That is somewhat similar to the problem of controlled nuclear fusion: it's already understood in principle, progress is steady, and the amount of work still ahead, and the capacities needed before we get there are also understood at least in rough outline.
I am fairly convinced I'll see both prototype conscious machines and prototype fusion reactors before my lights go out. Another 20 years ought to be plenty of time.

Not quite 30 years, Douglas Hofstadter, in "Gödel Escher Bach" made prediction about how long it will take till chess programs beat the world champion. Turned out he was far too pessimistic, it happened way sooner than this AI expert thought.

I think the problem is with you, Fudbucker: you don't understand consciousness, and you project your own ignorance on others.

I look forward to hearing your explanation as to how brains produce consciousness, given all this research you talk about.

And let me ask an obvious question: how will you know if a machine is conscious or not?

And let me ask another obvious question: what is consciousness?

 

[acbytesla]

Am I the only one that doesn't find "conscious pieces of meat" to be an absurd conclusion?

I mean, they're all around me. I am one. Why would I find it absurd? This seems like an argument from incredulity, like he's just trying to word it in a way that sounds strange even though it's an incredibly normal thing.

Calling them "pieces of meat" makes them sound like dead slabs of steak or something, and I agree that would be absurd. But we're talking about living brains, right? That's not absurd at all. I see critters with tiny little simple "brains", like bugs, that show very simple and limited behavior. Then I see the more complex ones show more complex behavior. Once you get to fancy enough brains, you've got really fancy complicated stuff including consciousness. This seems like a logical and observable progression.

Do I know all the mechanics of it? Nope. But that doesn't make it absurd. Will we ever understand it? I think we will, but that's not really important. If humans had been wiped out by a plague before we ever understood photosynthesis would that mean that it was impossible? After all, if materialism leads to an absurd conclusion, like the existence of vegetables that eat sunlight, it's devastating for the theory.

Some stuff we have already figured out. Some stuff we will probably figure out later. Some stuff we won't. That has no bearing on whether or not science is a useful tool or what is true. I can make almost anything sound absurd.

And to bring this all back to the topic at hand, this is one of the things that probably prevented me from remaining religious. This sort of incredulous "are you saying that fish somehow turned into monkeys?" thing worked on me for a little while but as soon as I started swatting down those arguments in areas where I disagreed with them I also started to recognize them coming from my own side. This very quickly whittled away at the foundations of religious belief.

I agree entirely. There will always questions and followup questions. We're like little kids asking the question why. We're peeling back the onion.

I despise the 'divine' answer because it is not only not an answer and has no explanatory power, it limits our ability to inquire more.

 

[MikeG]

I look forward to hearing your explanation as to how brains produce consciousness, given all this research you talk about.

And let me ask an obvious question: how will you know if a machine is conscious or not?

And let me ask another obvious question: what is consciousness?

Let me ask YOU an obvious question: what is your explanation of the link between this, your little pet hobby-horse (much discussed in other threads), and the thread title. Make it good......

 

[Fudbucker]

Let me ask YOU an obvious question: what is your explanation of the link between this, your little pet hobby-horse (much discussed in other threads), and the thread title. Make it good......

I already explained: the hard-problem of consciousness is what turned me from a strong-atheist to agnostic (weak atheist).

Or were only strong-atheists allowed to comment in this thread?

 

[acbytesla]

I look forward to hearing your explanation as to how brains produce consciousness, given all this research you talk about.

And let me ask an obvious question: how will you know if a machine is conscious or not?

And let me ask another obvious question: what is consciousness?

You really are hijacking this thread.
There are machines all over the world that are conscious. They're aware of their surroundings and react to them.

All that seems necessary are sensors and some kind of processor and you have created a low level form of consciousness.

 

[Fudbucker]

You really are hijacking this thread.
There are machines all over the world that are conscious. They're aware of their surroundings and react to them.

All that seems necessary are sensors and some kind of processor and you have created a low level form of consciousness.

Oh, I see. Talking about my atheism and how science has affected it is hijacking a thread called "Is your atheism predominately a science success or a theism fail?"

And conscious machines? Link?

 

[ynot]

I already explained: the hard-problem of consciousness is what turned me from a strong-atheist to agnostic (weak atheist).

Or were only strong-atheists allowed to comment in this thread?

And what then turned you from an agnostic (weak atheist) to a theist?

Perhaps you should've chosen to use the "hard problem " of "love" instead of "consciousness"? After all, as all good theists know, science can't explain love either.

I'm happy for members of any ilk to comment in this thread.

 

[The Norseman]

I already explained: the hard-problem of consciousness is what turned me from a strong-atheist to agnostic (weak atheist).

Or were only strong-atheists allowed to comment in this thread?

Man, there are so many other threads for you to genuinely comment in and you have commented in than this one regarding your pet-theory. Now you come up with some tenuous at best reason for derailing this one back to your pet-theory.

Seriously. What's the problem that you cannot bump another of the other half-dozen more-related threads?