Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 14061 - 14080 of total 22369 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
May 22, 2013 - 01:59pm PT
Again on the 'fundamental property' front, what would be the point? And isn't the implication then that an extended 'integrated information' theory would rest on the premise consciousness requires a physical universe? Seems quite an unsatisfactory state of affairs for folks who believe it's the other way around.

But in any of these 'fundamental property' approaches, one can only surmise this would essentially function as an antenna for consciousness:



Why consciousness would bother will likely remain a mystery.

Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
May 22, 2013 - 02:08pm PT
What I have learned from your particular brand of subjective experience is that it is not defined by the usual cognitive processes that we utilize by default in our attempts to understand the world we live in.


The first sentence of the above implies that you have "objective experience."
Kindly explain how you have that. Or are you simply saying that your consciousness objectifies things around you and "you" become aware of them in your subjective bubble. If you have a stand alone "objective" platform outside of your experience as a subject, that is really some news."Subject experience" as you use it simply refers to the experience of a subject.

Second, "the usual cognitive processes that we utilize by default in our attempts to understand the world we live in," is overstated. We all use the discursive mind to wrangle objects, but quantifying is not such a useful tool when dealing with subjects, or other "minds." You can crunch the numbers on a girlfriend, say, but at some time you've got to just shut up and "be" with that person to get a deeper understanding, beyond what discursive reasoning can provide you. There are various reasons why this is so, and they have little to do with "feelings" or emotionality in the normal sense of the word.

JL
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
May 22, 2013 - 04:41pm PT
I wold say - yes. You have it slightly wrong. Internal processing "objectifies" things into discrete dimensions and properties. The limit of this is that our internal processing cannot objectify consciousness, only processing and content. In fact, our discursive minds can't even grasp "mind" in the broad sense and has almost no capacity to deal with process (NOT processing or data crunching).

Man, it is always close but no cigar with you. I've heard it sooo many times.

Everything outside of our skin is utterly objective and physical. We animals are limited by our senses and our cunning.

We have gotten pretty good at objectifying things, and although scientific principles say that a problem is never "solved," most papers do say that something HAS been solved or proven. Because it has.

I don't know why anyone wouldn't desire a curious and analytical mind. You can look at anything and appreciate it for what it is, not what it seems like.

How does this qualia stuff work in real life? For me, I smell a blooming apple tree, and it is the best smell on the planet that I know of.

My wife has different smells that she prefers.

That has nothing to do with the molecules emitted by the flower to attract insects. That part is real. The "like" part is subjective and not important in a get run over by a truck point of view.

You can write great fiction novels using mainly qualia, but it has no place in deep, objective, fundamental, analysis.

Get it? I'm happy with my point of view, and am happy to finally say so.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
May 22, 2013 - 05:20pm PT
You can write great fiction novels using mainly qualia, but it has no place in deep, objective, fundamental, analysis.
-

You're misunderstanding qualia by falsely dividing reality into that which is inside, and that which is outside of your skin boudary. Qualia is simply the articles of your experience. You, as a living human being, can never get outside of the flow of your qualia. That means that the belief and idea of "deep, objective, fundamental, analysis" is and always be more qualia, in this case, the info stream from your discursive mind.

You're thinking that qualia is everything BUT analytic thought, which somwhow is neither subjective (occurs with no subject) or is sourced by some agency or thing OUTSIDE your skin boundary, making it physical and "real," whereas the qualia inside of your skin boundary is merely "subjective."

I would encourage you to go back and view Tononi's video and get a hold of how he talks about things "out there." You've simply decided (unconsciously) that the info stream that you're getting from the analytical part of your mind is more "real" because it appears to have a more direct impact on our physicality, the real "rock-hits-my-head" kind of real, as opposed to an impulse or an instinct.

JL
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Potemkin Village
May 22, 2013 - 07:39pm PT
Allahu akbar?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/22/world/europe/uk-london-attack/index.html

Perhaps we can admit that butchering a person in London to shouts of "Allahu akbar" is not "just a political act."

.....

I would encourage you to go back and view Tononi's video and get a hold of how he talks about things

His interview video is just as fascinating for its phrasing and framing (e.g., "just" neurons, etc.) and for what it doesn't say.

.....

The cartesian theater...

jogill

climber
Colorado
May 22, 2013 - 07:51pm PT
Islam needs a reformation badly. Probably won't happen.


Still curious about definition of "things"

Inexpressible?
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
May 22, 2013 - 07:57pm PT
His interview video is just as fascinating for its phrasing and framing

Noticed that too, every reference to the hypothetical "constellation" of... conscious neuron moments or whatever was modified by "fantastic," "amazing," etc. First rule of good writing is to trim adjectives unless they impart something necessary. No need for hype if the concept is solid.
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
May 22, 2013 - 08:07pm PT


String Theory May Limit Space Brain Threat


Clouds in the head
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
May 22, 2013 - 10:42pm PT
Credit: Ward Trotter

Your ad here.
Credit: Ward Trotter
MH2

climber
May 23, 2013 - 12:40am PT
From cintune's link to Space Brains:

Eventually, a random chunk of matter and energy will happen to come together in the form of a working mind.


Space? Hah! I've met people who fit that description.
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
May 23, 2013 - 06:12am PT
AAAS Science: Physicists Create Quantum Link Between Photons That Don't Exist at the Same Time
by Adrian Cho on 22 May 2013, 2:55 PM

Now they're just messing with us. Physicists have long known that quantum mechanics allows for a subtle connection between quantum particles called entanglement, in which measuring one particle can instantly set the otherwise uncertain condition, or "state," of another particle—even if it's light years away. Now, experimenters in Israel have shown that they can entangle two photons that don't even exist at the same time. ...
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Potemkin Village
May 23, 2013 - 09:51am PT
Islam needs a reformation badly. Probably won't happen.

It's probably underway right now. Unfortunately it's going to take a generation or two to really start seeing its effects.

.....

Hey, let's help a cheerful atheist in Oklahoma rebuild. She's got the right attitude.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIDrmYyfWe8

"It looks like America has changed more than I thought, for the better!!! :)"

the lead youtube commenter, with 25 Likes.

.....

"My Brother the Islamist"-- If you only have 1 hour to spare on Islam this year, watch this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LorhdNH1C34

And then the other shoe drops, Richard Dart, the Islamist brother, convicted, imprisoned...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22294720
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
May 23, 2013 - 10:21am PT
jogill, consciousness is definitely a property of the organization of information, although I cannot understand that author's main point. I also think its not just the organization of information, but the fact that the system models its surroundings and constantly refines the model based on sensory input. The model that this system makes of itself (ie "you") makes the system self-aware. Language is a step up from that, and allows more complex thoughts, but is really not central to what I would define as consciousness.

MH2 wrote:

It is impossible for you to see the world apart from all of the information that you are conscious of. When you are looking at an orange, for example, you cannot separate the color of the fruit (orange) from its shape (round).

This reminds me of music. A musical note by itself is like any other note, but in the context of a musical key it has a special meaning. When I first tried to learn how to play jazz music I thought the question was, what scales to play over what chords. But it's really about the key signature, how the note relates to it, and what other changes are going on in the music at the time. It's a good analogy to other things, that the meaning of something is mostly determined by its context.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
May 23, 2013 - 03:01pm PT
The model that this system makes of itself (ie "you") makes the system self-aware.


So you believe that self-awareness is a mechanical product of a system that basically has the capacity to self-organize - and by virtue of what, exactly?

That is: If you hold that consciousness is the output or artifact of an informational system, it follows that this system is anything but random.

It might be instructive to you to know that "you," or what's commonly called the ego-self, is not the same thing as self-awareness. The latter has no inherent signature, and all attempts to ascribe it's "creation" to this or that function or material root cause will never pan out because you're assuming the wrong things to begin with.

JL
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
May 23, 2013 - 04:17pm PT
I dont know what you mean by a signature or understand what you're saying about a random system. I would not call it an "output" as much as an inherent property, and the closest analogy I can make, is that consciousness must be like a property of mathematics or physics. In that sense, it is not something material or physical. The feeling of awareness, or the feeling of being alive, is somehow inherent in the modeling process. It's like, you're walking down the street in some soliloquoy imagining what you "should" have said in the argument with your wife, then you snap out of it and realize that there you are, "in the moment" and everything becomes immediate and real. It's that feeling I'm talking about, for which people invented the idea of the soul. Primitive man looked at the sun and imagined it had super-human properties, a god. That was a primitive scientific theory that was later disproved. Now, there is no adequate explanation for consciousness so all we have is the soul theory, which obviously has no basis in reality but provides some kind of explanation. And one that is exploited by religious zealots who can't deal with the fact that one day they will die.

I'd say the weakness in my argument is saying that the system's symbol for itself (the ego, or whatever) is what makes it conscious. It's a weakness because I am not sure its been proved, or how one would try to prove it. But the feeling I just described is like that too. You wake up from some soliquoy and realize how amazing it is to be alive, then quickly forget and return to what you were thinking about, which is no doubt more practical. It was that sudden feeling of who and where you are, that I'm calling consciousness.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
May 23, 2013 - 06:21pm PT
I'd say the weakness in my argument is saying that the system's symbol for itself (the ego, or whatever) is what makes it conscious. It's a weakness because I am not sure its been proved, or how one would try to prove it. But the feeling I just described is like that too. You wake up from some soliquoy and realize how amazing it is to be alive, then quickly forget and return to what you were thinking about, which is no doubt more practical. It was that sudden feeling of who and where you are, that I'm calling consciousness.


Talking about that which is neither physical or material will get you labeled as a crackpot on this thread, which is dominated by physicalists in the fundamentalists sense of the word, that is, reality IS physical, period. And go ahead and prove it otherwise. Of course this all-or-nothing position runs out of road at the juncture of experience, but we're still early in the game, right, LOL.

Anyhow, you can't fault those people for lack of faith in their chosen perspectives.

What you have described is a very common experience people have who are starting with a meditation practice, especially those who do eyes-closed meditation, which typically leads to mind wandering. There you are just trying to watch your breath, or count breaths, trying your damnest to maintain conscious self-awareness and then, bam, your awareness becomes unconsciously fused with a thought or feeling and off you go on an unintentional and totally unconscious sleigh ride into la la land. The remarkable thing is that we do wake back up to the present, real moment and can look back and wonder how we were lost for so long and didn't even
know it at the time. The discursive mind runs on auto-pilot most of the time, so it;s no wonder many people believe this is who they are.

There are many reasons this happens, but mostly it has to do with us not having any experience at keeping our focus wide open, habituated as we are at narrowing our attention onto a thought or feeling or whatever. You have to develop your awareness like a muscle or it will simply fuse to whatever piece of qualia that has the most voltage at a given time. And off yougo, having never decided to go, but getting dragged away for the total lack of a present foothold in reality, in the here and now.

Conscious self awareness can be described as conscious presence, that is, you are right here right now and you are aware of being so. Paradoxically, this is most easily accomplished not by trying to flex your ego self and to force your attention to pay attention, but to abandon all connection to words, thoughts, sense of self, need to concentrate and figure things out, and then you are simply here right now. You are BEING alive in reality, which is always right now, as opposed to living in a cognitive bubble in which conscious self awareness is almost wholly absent.

In this sense, conscious self-awareness is not a "symbol" assigned by a "system," but the nameless, unborn field in which all "things" arise and in turn, fall back into. I would agree with you that this consciousness is not created but is in some mysterious way an inherent quality or context in which physical reality arises but which is not created in the normal sense of the word. The weak link is the belief that this presence is created or caused by something else, or is mere physical blow back or artifact. It is pretty facile to see that this is just the discursive mind's attempt to assign a kind of thingness to that which you described as neither material or physical, ideas that the discursive mind has to means of grasping, built as it is to deal exclusively with things, qualities, effects, combinations, constructs, etc.

JL
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Potemkin Village
May 23, 2013 - 07:31pm PT
All you consciousness wonks have probably already watched this piece by Susan Blackmore at Cal Tech...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdMA8RVu1sk

One part of the piece I liked is how she clarified her use of "illusion" regarding consciousness. Sometimes we get into a similar communications morass with this word, I think, with the phrase, the "illusion of free will."
MH2

climber
May 23, 2013 - 10:20pm PT
It is pretty facile to see that this is just the discursive mind's attempt to assign a kind of thingness to that which you described as neither material or physical, ideas that the discursive mind has to means of grasping, built as it is to deal exclusively with things, qualities, effects, combinations, constructs, etc.


That is easy (or facile) for you to say.

It could also be the case that everything you experience, whether in discursive or awareness-wide-open mode is traceable to electrical and chemical interactions in your brain that will ultimately prove to be graspable.

On the other hand, the objective nature of mathematical truth holds open the possibility of a different kind of existence, at least as perceived by the human mind. The famous Fermat conjecture was true before he proposed it, true during the more than 300 years it took to find a proof, and will be true after humans are gone. A single counter-example would disprove it. It is the truth or falsity of mathematical ideas that seems to be independent of human subjective opinion.
jogill

climber
Colorado
May 23, 2013 - 10:47pm PT
. . . conscious self-awareness is not a "symbol" assigned by a "system," but the nameless, unborn field in which all "things" arise and in turn, fall back into

So "things" (whatever that means) do not exist apart from consciousness, an ineffable "field" that is "unborn". How can a field be unborn? Is this what Jan was talking about some time ago when she alluded to the difficulty of putting such "concepts" into words? That your vocabulary, being a discursive tool, can't keep up with and describe your insights. If that is the case, then why keep trying? Find some other way - pictures, videos, etc. - to convey your ideas. Your comments from time to time about the meditative practices point toward some sort of non-verbal illumination and maybe you can simply leave it at that. Clearly, your verbal arguments are not getting through to those of us "fundamentalists physicalists" who demand more from language and reason.


just sayin . . .
WBraun

climber
May 23, 2013 - 10:54pm PT
"unborn"

Simple

Means no beginning nor end.

Existing eternally.

It's not words that are the problem but intelligence.

Modern scientists over think everything and then become bewildered because they never dovetail any of their actions with the whole ......

Messages 14061 - 14080 of total 22369 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews