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

[Fudbucker]

Too bad this thread has devolved into more BS philosophizing make-it-up-as-you-go anti-science nonsense.

I do find it amusing, however, that the people arguing the so-called solipsistic POV are using the exact same arguments of incredulity, "proof", "unassailable position" and so on that many theists use to defend their "god." And they don't seem to realize it.

I find it more amusing that materialists are debating whether toilets can be conscious.

And you guys think theists come up with some loony ****!

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Too bad this thread has devolved into more BS philosophizing make-it-up-as-you-go anti-science nonsense.

I do find it amusing, however, that the people arguing the so-called solipsistic POV are using the exact same arguments of incredulity, "proof", "unassailable position" and so on that many theists use to defend their "god." And they don't seem to realize it.

Here is some begging the question for you. When doing the probability of being in reality as it appears or a Boltzman Brain, you would presumably be relying on the experience of your senses and your reasoning power. So how did you get those - well, you got them from the reality, which is as it appears, right? If yes, that would be begging the question.
So here is another version - you don't control reality, reality controls you, so reality would appear the same in both cases. In other words the "I" in "I exist" is noting but the result of process which is beyond the control of "I". You don't control which reality you are in and you don't know which one you are in. So if you believe that you are in a reality, which is as it appears, that is because you are caused and determined by the reality independent of your mind, regardless of which one you are in.

You don't know if there is another human, who wrote this or if you are a Boltzmann Brain. You don't control reality, reality controls you.
In other words you can't give evidence for the fact that reality is as it appears.

So I don't claim evidence or knowledge of what reality really is, because that would circular reasoning and that is illogical. I believe in a natural reality and one that is as it appears.
And no, that it doesn't make sense that you can't know what reality is independent of your mind and that it is useless what I claim, won't determine what reality you are in. Reality controls you and not the other way around. The map (your mind) is not the landscape (the reality independent of your mind). You are inside a cognitive bubble and no matter how much you dislike that if you do so, won't change that. You are inside a cognitive bubble and you don't control reality.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I find it more amusing that materialists are debating whether toilets can be conscious.

Is a neuron conscious? Do you reject the idea that a computer will ever be conscious?

 

[Myriad]

I look forward to the invention of "dispirited alcohol." That's ethyl alcohol from which the ineffable nonmaterial qualities that allow it to affect nonmaterial conscious experience has been removed. So even though it's chemically identical to regular alcohol, and it still affects brain cells chemically in all the same ways, it can't get you drunk.

 

[LarryS]

I look forward to the invention of "dispirited alcohol." That's ethyl alcohol from which the ineffable nonmaterial qualities that allow it to affect nonmaterial conscious experience has been removed. So even though it's chemically identical to regular alcohol, and it still affects brain cells chemically in all the same ways, it can't get you drunk.

so are we back to humor now?

 

[Agatha]

Will you all please ensure that you remain civil and polite in your posts, and that you address the arguments being made rather than attack the arguers.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Tassman]

For the human species it doesn't require all humans to survive, nor does it say anything about a good life in general. Further biological evolution is about the fitness of the individual organism in regards to reproduction, not the fitness of the species. There can be competition within a species for resources and since resources are limited, competition do occur.

Humans are a social species. For any social species the benefits of being part of an altruistic group outweigh the benefits of individualism. For example, lack of group cohesion renders individuals more vulnerable to attack from outsiders. Being part of group also improves the chances of finding food...this is evident among animals that hunt in packs to take down large or dangerous prey, as primitive man did. This is evolutionary, scientific fact.

Hence, as a consequence, morals are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation in every case and are a consequence of natural selection as described by science. They are naturally built into us, because those morals are beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals. In short, morality is grounded in scientific fact, not philosophical arguments.

In short humanity is a moral sense is not the same as the human species in the biological sense, because humanity is an idea, i.e. a social construct and not a biological fact.

Not so, see above.

Try again.

Your turn.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Humans are a social species. For any social species the benefits of being part of an altruistic group outweigh the benefits of individualism. For example, lack of group cohesion renders individuals more vulnerable to attack from outsiders. Being part of group also improves the chances of finding food...this is evident among animals that hunt in packs to take down large or dangerous prey, as primitive man did. This is evolutionary, scientific fact.

Hence, as a consequence, morals are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation in every case and are a consequence of natural selection as described by science. They are naturally built into us, because those morals are beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals. In short, morality is grounded in scientific fact, not philosophical arguments.

So humanity is a group where all member of this group is all humans and everybody cares for everybody else and there is no other groups than this one - all humans are a member of one social group where everybody has social interaction with everybody else. Is that it?
So if we test this - i.e. observe reality we find that there are no other groups than this one? There are no group who only have some humans as member and who treat other humans as non-member or as you wrote: "more vulnerable to attack from outsiders".
If humanity is one coherent social group, who are the outsiders?

 

[Cheetah]

A conscious system of toilets is as impossible (to me), as 2+2 equaling 5 in some part of the universe. It's so fundamental, I would consider it an axiom: no system of toilets can ever become conscious.

I find it more amusing that materialists are debating whether toilets can be conscious.
And you guys think theists come up with some loony ****!

So it's just a gut feeling, you don't have an argument and you find it amusing?
The concept of a process being hardware independent has been proven mathematically and has been demonstrated many times, no exceptions.
Parts of the human brain have been scanned and modeled and implemented on different physical hardwares, they really do function the same.
Sometimes you just have to face the facts and squash the gut feeling, many people still think quantum stuff is impossible since it intuitively makes no sense.

 

[Tassman]

So humanity is a group where all member of this group is all humans and everybody cares for everybody else and there is no other groups than this one - all humans are a member of one social group where everybody has social interaction with everybody else. Is that it?
So if we test this - i.e. observe reality we find that there are no other groups than this one? There are no group who only have some humans as member and who treat other humans as non-member or as you wrote: "more vulnerable to attack from outsiders".

If humanity is one coherent social group, who are the outsiders?

Humans are a social species that live in communities or groups, as are most other primates. The latter also have their codes of acceptable or unacceptable behaviour within the group. The outsiders are rival groups or wild carnivorous animals.

 

[Fudbucker]

So it's just a gut feeling, you don't have an argument and you find it amusing?
The concept of a process being hardware independent has been proven mathematically and has been demonstrated many times, no exceptions.
Parts of the human brain have been scanned and modeled and implemented on different physical hardwares, they really do function the same.
Sometimes you just have to face the facts and squash the gut feeling, many people still think quantum stuff is impossible since it intuitively makes no sense.

You realize it's a very short hop from conscious systems of toilets to conscious shifting sand dunes, meteor swarms, rain storms, and simulating universes of conscious beings by pushing rocks around.

You never answered this: Do you think this comic is possible? https://xkcd.com/505/

If you think that that is impossible (or highly highly unlikely), and materialism entails the possibility of simulated-universe-viz-a-viz-moving-rocks, then materialism is impossible (or highly highly unlikely). In other words, materialism leads to something that is, for all intents and purposes, impossible (in other words, absurd). Reductio ad absurdum

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Humans are a social species that live in communities or groups, as are most other primates. The latter also have their codes of acceptable or unacceptable behaviour within the group. The outsiders are rival groups or wild carnivorous animals.

So the human species have rules for the in-group and out-group and thus is not just one group. We have altruism, empathy, fairness, hate and violence and all are observable scientific facts.

So can we conclude this: Humans can show altruism, empathy and fairness towards other humans and also hate and violence and there is no one group of all humans in the human species, who only show altruism, empathy and fairness towards all other humans.

Or is this wrong? What am I missing? Human behavior in an objective and observable manner also include hate, violence, stealing, cheating and so on and not just altruism, empathy, fairness, cooperation and so on.
What am I missing?

 

[Tassman]

So the human species have rules for the in-group and out-group and thus is not just one group. We have altruism, empathy, fairness, hate and violence and all are observable scientific facts.

It’s called tribalism...heard of it?

So can we conclude this: Humans can show altruism, empathy and fairness towards other humans and also hate and violence and there is no one group of all humans in the human species, who only show altruism, empathy and fairness towards all other humans.

As with all moral codes there are those who don’t conform to it.

Or is this wrong? What am I missing? Human behavior in an objective and observable manner also include hate, violence, stealing, cheating and so on and not just altruism, empathy, fairness, cooperation and so on.
What am I missing?

Of course! When hasn’t this been the case? This is why we have justice systems.

 

[Cheetah]

You realize it's a very short hop from conscious systems of toilets to conscious shifting sand dunes, meteor swarms, rain storms, and simulating universes of conscious beings by pushing rocks around.

No, it is not, not even close.

The process of mind and consciousness is a very specific thing. It took millions of years of evolution and an insanely complex brain, wired in just the right way for it to work.

I would say even though it is theoretically possible to implement a mind on weird hardware, just the scale of the project in time and space would make it practically impossible.

I consider the chance of a conscious mind happening naturally with "shifting sand dunes, meteor swarms, rain storms" etc. to be impossible.
I see no way for a simple "brain like thing" to spontaneously appear and eventually evolve and become more complex and result in consciousness on these "types of hardware."
I cannot see a way for a natural mind to exist, except by starting very simply and evolving more complexity over time.
I might be wrong.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

It’s called tribalism...heard of it?

Yes, it is a natural, physical and scientific fact.

As with all moral codes there are those who don’t conform to it.

Yes, and we, who don't do that, are still members of the human species. That is a natural, physical and scientific fact.

Of course! When hasn’t this been the case? This is why we have justice systems.

And we, who don't accept a given local justice system, are still members of the human species. That is a natural, physical and scientific fact.

Indeed it is a fact, that we in practice don't have one universal justice system, but several, which in fact contradict each other as for what justice is.
That is a natural, physical and scientific fact.
So how do you use science between contradicting justice systems to determine, which one is a natural, physical and scientific fact and the others are not natural, physical and scientific facts, if it is a fact, that we have several contradicting justice systems and they are all natural, physical and scientific facts?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

No, it is not, not even close.

The process of mind and consciousness is a very specific thing. It took millions of years of evolution and an insanely complex brain, wired in just the right way for it to work.

I would say even though it is theoretically possible to implement a mind on weird hardware, just the scale of the project in time and space would make it practically impossible.

I consider the chance of a conscious mind happening naturally with "shifting sand dunes, meteor swarms, rain storms" etc. to be impossible.
I see no way for a simple "brain like thing" to spontaneously appear and eventually evolve and become more complex and result in consciousness on these "types of hardware."
I cannot see a way for a natural mind to exist, except by starting very simply and evolving more complexity over time.
I might be wrong.

Check out a Boltzmann Brain.

 

[Cheetah]

Check out a Boltzmann Brain.

I don't agree with the argument.

I think the chance of something with the equivalent complexity of 10¹¹ brain cells with 10¹⁴ connections, arranged in just the correct way, for a mind and consciousness to spontaneously happen, to be pretty darn slim.
The chance of life evolving in a universe with the correct laws to make it possible, maybe even probable, does not seem nearly as slim.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I don't agree with the argument.

I think the chance of something with the equivalent complexity of 10¹¹ brain cells with 10¹⁴ connections, arranged in just the correct way, for a mind and consciousness to spontaneously happen, to be pretty darn slim.
The chance of life evolving in a universe with the correct laws to make it possible, maybe even probable, does not seem nearly as slim.

You are aware that you thinking that can both be caused by you being a universe, which is as it appears and a universe, where you are a Boltzmann Brain.
You are begging the question or doing circular reasoning, because you can take your thinking for granted, because that is what is in question. What caused your thinking - a universe, which is as it appears or a universe, where you are a Boltzmann Brain?

 

[David Mo]

I’m saying is that material phenomena such as consciousness are studied by the physical, natural sciences, such as biology and NOT the social sciences such as psychology. You seem to be arguing that ‘consciousness’ is more than the functioning of the living organism that is the brain. I am saying that there is no good reason for supposing consciousness cannot be investigated by the methods of physical science just as other phenomena of supposed immaterial mysteriousness have succumbed to an uncontroversial natural explanation over the centuries.


Consciousness arises from the neurological functioning of the brain and nervous system. If you want to say it is more than the material brain then you are yet again flirting with dualism.

You claim that natural science is the only source of knowledge of consciousness but you are unable of quoting a single article of biology in a peer reviewed journal of biology on the subject.
I have provided you a lengthy bibliography of philosophical and psychological research about consciousness that you have not looked.

The conclusion is definitive: natural sciences are needed but they are unable to cope alone with the study of consciousness. Your statement that consciousness is only a matter of natural science is false.

I repeat: I am not saying that the mind is more than the brain or can function without the brain. My position is limited to knowledge. I affirm that —at least in the current state of things— the knowledge and the discourse about consciousness needs philosophical and psychological concepts. The bibliography that I put here and that you refuse to look at is definitive.

 

[David Mo]

If you take a view of the Great Pyramid with your video camera, where is the impression of this perfectly consistent view, in your camera or outside the camera?

Let us use a neutral word: "head". You are seeing a perfectly consistent view of your computer at work. Where is the impression of your view, in your head or outside your head?

I'm sure you think they are clever, but I assure you neither of these questions even make sense. You don't seem to understand what I mean by "consistency" at all.

Why? I think that my questions are very useful for our debate. Why do you think they have not any sense?

(...)

NOTE: If you refuse to answer my questions the dialogue becomes impossible.

Well I'm not good at creating definitions so I'll illustrate:

It's possible when you have a dream to have mutually-contradictory events occur, or to imagine impossible shapes, or to "feel" colour or other such nonsense. You can be in a room thinking about doing something, and then walk a short distance, suddenly find yourself in a different room and completing your task by doing something entirely different as if nothing happened. "Reality" is not like that. You can't have inconsistencies, and I challenge anyone to provide examples of those. My argument is that the consistency of things that we don't know come from our minds versus the inconsistency of things we know for a fact come from our minds is a very good and reasonable standard to use in determining what's real or not. Then we can actually test this assumption using things like science, and so far we've been 100% correct, it seems.

Where have you answered my original questions? Where have you commented my example of the camera?

Why you are avoiding my questions?