Idealists: What does 'physical' mean to you?

[interwaff]

1. Having to do with the MEST universe as described by L. Ron Hubbard.

2. A state of romance in which touching occurs, including person-to-person contact as well as object-to-person interactions.

[Silentknight]

I wonder how many lives have been destroyed by someone's "inner knowingness" about "divine truths"?

Add absolute certainty to that equation and you've got a formula for disaster. If extrapolating a philosophical stance down its slippery slope were a valid assumption for the sake of argument, then one might argue that immaterialism in the form of solipsism is responsible for the worst crimes and atrocities in history. After all, the perpetrators of these acts must have believed that they weren't harming anyone real, because all the external perceived phenomena called people were just figments of their imagination.

[AkuManiMani]

I wonder how many lives have been destroyed by someone's "inner knowingness" about "divine truths"?

I suppose we should count you as a casualty then. Apparently, your early brush with Roman Catholicism has deeply affected you. :(

[rocketdodger]

Godel was omniscient? Well, just two letters out. Godel was talking about all finite systems having to rely upon assumptions external to the system itself. That would not apply to omniscience.

Joking about it doesn't change the fact that your understanding of this issue is somewhat lacking.

In particular, that is not what "Godel was talking about." What you stated above is not incompleteness.

Godel "was talking about" the fact (which he proved formally) that for every sufficiently powerful system there are truths that cannot be obtained from the axioms of the system.

Even if what you wrote made any sense mathematically, it would be wrong. And it doesn't make sense because

1) A "finite system" is not a mathematical notion, it is an engineering notion. Most 'formal systems' I.E. those of mathematics can generate infinite theorems (statements) given a finite set of axioms, so it doesn't make sense to label them "finite" or "infinite."

2) Incompleteness applies to systems with an infinite number of axioms anyway -- the number of axioms is irrelevant.

3) Systems do not rely upon external assumptions -- they would not be systems if they did.

4) The "assumption external to the system itself" you mention is not an assumption. It is a true statement of arithmetic. It would be much less troubling to our sense of place in the universe if it was merely an assumption.

[HypnoPsi]

The point of describing a thing through behavior is that it avoids all the useless stupidity associated with arguments over substance.


No, the point of materialists only discussing behaviour and then, post hoc, claiming that's just what consciousness is is that it serves to completely skirt the question of consciousness.

All so called (materialistic) research into consciousness is nothing more than, at the very best, cognitive modelling in terms of problem solving, ect.,.


properties (behaviors) rather than substance you would have nothing to argue about.


So called, "modern materialists" in academia very rarely refer to themselves as "materialists" (modern or otherwise). Instead, they usually refer to themselves as "physicalists".

Look, materialism as a defined term means "something that occupies space and time" - an idea very closely related to atomism (lit.tran. "un-cuttable").

Surely, you should see how the idea itself obviously becomes redundant when one begins to talk about sub-atomic particles themselves as being braids in spacetime (as in loop quantum gravity theory).

For talking sense, as a thought experiment only, if we imagine that LQG theory turns out to be "truth" that still leaves us to ponder: what the heck is spacetime?

I have no idea - and neither do you.

But however you dress it up - as materialism or physicalism (by any definition you've offered so far) - it is still perfectly clear that atheist materilism or physicalism inherently entails the view that whatever "it" ultimately is it is self-perpetuating, self-generating and/or self-sustaining (i.e. uncreated).

To my mind that is very clearly as much a faith based position as theism.

What exactly does "psi" mean?


Good question. Historically, it has been divided into psi-kappa (extrasensory cognition) and psi-gamma (extrasensory action-at-a-distance).

In modern times it has come to mean more than just extra-sensory to include any conscious activity (input or output) that is not (fully) mediated by anything physical - or known to physics at this time.

If by "psi" you simply mean "unknown" then I agree, those experiments would be evidence of psi. But that would be a pretty weak definition.

The point is do they show or even hint at consciousness being distinct - or even partly distinct - from physiology? Since the positive hit rates were achieved by some seeming extra-sensory method that is the conclusion many draw. Whether or not it's all down to your EM fields or some kind of spirit is another question altogether.


Because as an A.I. programmer, I cannot for the life of me find a qualitative difference between what goes on in my mind and what I can make an A.I. do.


Yet this is precisely where I see you as being confused. You are looking at cognitive activity and computational activity from the outside and after describing them both in the same qualitative terms (as functions and problem solving routines, etc.,.) assuming that means consciousness exists for the A.I., however rudimentary you may suppose A.I. consciousness to be.

For myself, I think that John Searl has come very close to pointing out the faults in this reasoning with his Chinese Room thought experiment.

What is "reasoning" to a computer/machine exactly?

start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence

more specifically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_chaining
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_chaining
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_network


All absolutely fantastic stuff and I applaud the creativity, inspiration, hard work and intelligence behind all of it.

Please, go ahead and develop robot buddys to help grandma around the house and voluptuous robo-bimbos and himbos for the rest of us for our... ahem.. entertainment... ;)

But do not imagine for one minute that you are in anyway proving even slightly that such things actually have any conscious subjective experience no matter how much you co-opt psychological language in your qualitative descriptions of Information Processing, etc.,.

~
HypnoPsi

[Silentknight]

No, the point of materialists only discussing behaviour and then, post hoc, claiming that's just what consciousness is is that it serves to completely skirt the question of consciousness.

All so called (materialistic) research into consciousness is nothing more than, at the very best, cognitive modelling in terms of problem solving, ect.,. (snip)
Your refusal to look up concepts you don't understand in no way drags them down to the level of your own dismissable question-begging.

In modern times it has come to mean more than just extra-sensory to include any conscious activity (input or output) that is not (fully) mediated by anything physical - or known to physics at this time.

The point is do they show or even hint at consciousness being distinct - or even partly distinct - from physiology? Since the positive hit rates were achieved by some seeming extra-sensory method that is the conclusion many draw. Whether or not it's all down to your EM fields or some kind of spirit is another question altogether.
For proving my point, you owe me a million dollars.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But however you dress it up - as materialism or physicalism (by any definition you've offered so far) - it is still perfectly clear that atheist materilism or physicalism inherently entails the view that whatever "it" ultimately is it is self-perpetuating, self-generating and/or self-sustaining (i.e. uncreated).
What does theist materialism/physicalism entail?


But do not imagine for one minute that you are in anyway proving even slightly that such things actually have any conscious subjective experience no matter how much you co-opt psychological language in your qualitative descriptions of Information Processing, etc.,.
How would we determine whether a robot has phenomenal experience?

~~ Paul

[HypnoPsi]

We are supposed to believe that reality is made up of physical stuff that takes up space and can be observed/weighed/measured/felt, etc.


Actually, one prominent theory these days suggests that what we call particles are just braids in/of spacetime. I find the very idea of it fascinating - though I have absolutely no idea what any of it really means. :)


Ok, let's assume that's true. How is it then that a bunch of physical matter can be arranged in such a way as to create a completely non-physical phenemenon- consciousness?


Yes, thank you, Malerin. Consciousness and physical matter are phenomenally distinct things at the most basic level.


Why should there be anything like consciousness in a purely physical universe?


This is something that Rupert Sheldrake asks very often. I saw him speak a few months ago and I thought he made a fabulous point about how materialistic models for consciousness drawn from A.I. never actually point out the purpose or requirement of consciousness (in evolutionary terms).

Consciousness, as in subjective experience, is surplus to requirements if you only need a physical device to solve problems as and when it interacts with its environment.

As Rupert pointed out - we are creative beings.


Consciouesness is totally outside the realm of physicality, and when materialists claim that consciousness comes from matter, they are creating a fairy tale much more unparsimonious than anything a theist can come up with.


Yes, definitely. When is "now"?

As soon as you've said/read "now" it isn't "now" anymore.

There is something distinctly timeless about consciousness.


The theist at least knows the mind exists, and so their claim that God (as a sort of super-mind) exists at least rests on a foundation of mind, however shaky it may be.


Again, yes, this is so clearly obvious to me that I am genuinely surprised anyone wastes their efforts on trying to refute it.

The God-Mind is obviously a huge step from our limited awareness. But, then, any theory that attempts to expain why there is a Universe is going to be pretty big by necessity.


The materialist is bereft of even the shakiest foundation. There is no evidence at all that physical matter exists,


I would go much further than this. Whatever the Universe and all the objective phenomena within it are, modern physics has clearly shown them to be without any substance whatsoever in the traditional view of the term.

Atoms and particles are not "uncuttable". And even if their massless state is down to superstrings or loop quantum gravity they're still ultimately just information/laws.

This is very good for theistic theories and very bad for atheistic theories.

We can't even imagine a system in which information can store itself! At least materialism had this going for it until physics outgrew it.

God-Mind is the only real contender left.


It is a completely ad-hoc non-sensical theory that the materialist must believe in order to keep the whole house-of-cards that is materialism from collapsing.


The atheist faith in materialism/physicalism is wholly without logic, reason or rationality. Information needs a mind to exist and be information. Without a mind it wouldn't be information - it would be nothing. And the only way for it not to be nothing would be if it were some kind of permanent (i.e. "uncuttable") self-sustaining and self-perpetuating substance occupying spacetime - and there isn't any!

The house-of-cards that is materialism has never had any foundation to begin with!

Best,
HypnoPsi

[rocketdodger]

No, the point of materialists only discussing behaviour and then, post hoc, claiming that's just what consciousness is is that it serves to completely skirt the question of consciousness.

Do you have any evidence of the consciousness of anyone besides yourself that is anything other than behavior?

Are you certain that your evidence of your own consciousness is not behavior as well?

All so called (materialistic) research into consciousness is nothing more than, at the very best, cognitive modelling in terms of problem solving, ect.,.

Even if this were true, so what?

So called, "modern materialists" in academia very rarely refer to themselves as "materialists" (modern or otherwise). Instead, they usually refer to themselves as "physicalists".

Look, materialism as a defined term means "something that occupies space and time" - an idea very closely related to atomism (lit.tran. "un-cuttable").

Surely, you should see how the idea itself obviously becomes redundant when one begins to talk about sub-atomic particles themselves as being braids in spacetime (as in loop quantum gravity theory).

For talking sense, as a thought experiment only, if we imagine that LQG theory turns out to be "truth" that still leaves us to ponder: what the heck is spacetime?

I have no idea - and neither do you.

I have an idea of the properties a thing must have for it to be knowable to a human -- material properties. Parsimony dictates that the simplest explanation for a thing having those properties is that there is a thing having those properties. That is materialism. I don't know exactly what you are talking about, but it doesn't seem to be this.


But however you dress it up - as materialism or physicalism (by any definition you've offered so far) - it is still perfectly clear that atheist materilism or physicalism inherently entails the view that whatever "it" ultimately is it is self-perpetuating, self-generating and/or self-sustaining (i.e. uncreated).

To my mind that is very clearly as much a faith based position as theism.

No.

It is perfectly clear that stuff exists. It is also perfectly clear that stuff must come from existing stuff. These are the foundations of thought -- things exist and every result has a cause.

This means either stuff has been around forever, which a human cannot comprehend, or the stuff somehow came from something other than existing stuff, which a human can also not comprehend. Since we can't comprehend either, it is pointless to even think about it.

I don't say "self-creating and self-sustaining" because those are nonsense ideas. Results without a cause. A human can't think like that. You are deluding yourself if you think you can.


The point is do they show or even hint at consciousness being distinct - or even partly distinct - from physiology? Since the positive hit rates were achieved by some seeming extra-sensory method that is the conclusion many draw. Whether or not it's all down to your EM fields or some kind of spirit is another question altogether.

No, they don't show or even hint at consciousness being distinct from physiology.

To show that, one would have to find results that suggest the physical state of a mind can remain the same while the consciousness it produces changes. No such results exist.

Yet this is precisely where I see you as being confused. You are looking at cognitive activity and computational activity from the outside and after describing them both in the same qualitative terms (as functions and problem solving routines, etc.,.) assuming that means consciousness exists for the A.I., however rudimentary you may suppose A.I. consciousness to be.

For myself, I think that John Searl has come very close to pointing out the faults in this reasoning with his Chinese Room thought experiment.

No, he hasn't.

All he has pointed out is that if one accepts that consciousness is computational then one must accept that they could be a chinese room themselves.

He did not, in any way, show that consciousness is not computational.

The only way one can reach that conclusion from the chinese room thought experiment is if one really doesn't like the idea of being a chinese room -- so much so that they abandon rational thought and simply stick their head in the sand.


But do not imagine for one minute that you are in anyway proving even slightly that such things actually have any conscious subjective experience no matter how much you co-opt psychological language in your qualitative descriptions of Information Processing, etc.,.


Why do you imagine your friends and family have any conscious subjective experience?

[plumjam]

Experience by itself cannot be unconditionally trusted.

You could only have come to this conclusion via experience.

[rocketdodger]

The house-of-cards that is materialism has never had any foundation to begin with!

Was there supposed to be some content in that post?

Because all I got out of it was you and Malerin giggling at each other.

[HypnoPsi]

Idealists, do you feel threatened by creeping materialism? Does it threaten to curtail your wilder theories about creation?


Not an idealist here (I'm a theist and phenomenologist) but, no, I absolutely don't feel threatened by "creeping materialism" in the slightest.

I absolutely love all this stuff claiming that the Universe and everything in it made of some self-sustaining stuff or other and that computers (or thermostats) are consciousness (or have rudimentary "thoughts").

Atheists/materialists don't have the slightest shred of evidence for any of it. It's pure smoke and mirrors. 100% absolute blind-faith.

The hey day of this whole atheism/skepticism/materialism movement is well and truly over - as much due to its own flaws as anything else.

The more someone wants to be a good atheist/skeptic/materialist then the more they'll have to defend, explain and answer the issues and questions that the likes of Malerin, PlumJam and myself have been pointing out.

And there's lots of very annoyed theists out there to answer to...

~
HypnoPsi

[rocketdodger]

You could only have come to this conclusion via experience.

Were you an ostrich in a previous life plumjam?

[rocketdodger]

The hey day of this whole atheism/skepticism/materialism movement is well and truly over - as much due to its own flaws as anything else.

Ah so you are also ignorant of world history and current events. Bravo.

[HypnoPsi]

Computers - even very simple ones - have subjective experiences.


You can't even prove to me that you have subjective experiences, so how can you prove this?

We completely understand every part of the process by which those experiences are formed, and there they are.


Really? Completely understand? As in to the level of getting Malerin's colour blind scientists to see red?

Okay then. If you completely understand how subjective experiences are formed in computers then why not completely explain it and/or completely demonstrate it to the rest of us?

~
HypnoPsi

[paximperium]

Materalist:
The cosmos is made of stuff. We don't know what this stuff is made from but can see its properties. This stuff interacts with one another and produces certain processes. These process occasionally become aware of its own processes. These processes occasionally try to figure out what this stuff is made from and how these stuff interacts.


Idealist/wooist:
The cosmos is made of stuff and magic. We don't know what this stuff is made from but can see its properties however magic also does things...don't know what things but it does, trust me. This stuff interacts with one another and produces certain processes but magic somehow is involve as well. These process occasionally become aware of its own processes and somehow there is magic as well. These processes occasionally try to figure out what this stuff is made from and how these stuff interacts and occasionally we can't figure things out so magic must be involved as well.

[paximperium]

You can't even prove to me that you have subjective experiences, so how can you prove this?

Really? Completely understand? As in to the level of getting Malerin's colour blind scientists to see red?

Okay then. If you completely understand how subjective experiences are formed in computers then why not completely explain it and/or completely demonstrate it to the rest of us?

~
HypnoPsi
Translation: You can't explain everything about materialism therefore my magic thinking is the true one.

[Ichneumonwasp]

You could only have come to this conclusion via experience.


Experience is the beginning of knowledge, not the end.

That no one can come to such a conclusion without experience tells us nothing about the actual process of arriving at the conclusion. Of course experience is a part of the "experience"; it is necessary but not sufficient.

Why do all of these discussions always return to the same point -- it's all about the evidence?

[HypnoPsi]

The issue with your 'Overmind' postulate is that it assumes a fundamental entity which, itself, would need explaining.


The scientific purpose of constructing a theory as parsimoniously as possible is absolutely not that the final theorised model/solution should somehow not pose futher questions.

That has never, ever, been a requirement of theory-building or parsimony.

The only essential facet is that our final theorised model/solution should deal with all the data available in as neat a way as possible with as few (preferably zero) unknowns as possible in the construction of the final theorised model/solution.

In brief:

1) Deal with all the data (don't leave out bits you don't like)
2) Do it parsimoniously (don't bring in unknowns)

It doesn't matter if the materialistic theory of some orderly mechanical universe causes less questions after the fact or if the God theory causes a million - in your mind. (In my mind the materialistic one causes a million more than the God theory!)

The thing is we don't and, almost certainly, cannot know what the ultimate fundamental of reality is because there really isn't one.


The question is: is the information "out there and in here" all self-sustaining or not?

God-Mind is predicated on a known. Matter isn't predicated on anything - especially, though not exclusively, as a theory of information that sustains itself.

~
HypnoPsi

[Silentknight]

This is something that Rupert Sheldrake asks very often. I saw him speak a few months ago and I thought he made a fabulous point about how materialistic models for consciousness drawn from A.I. never actually point out the purpose or requirement of consciousness (in evolutionary terms).

Consciousness, as in subjective experience, is surplus to requirements if you only need a physical device to solve problems as and when it interacts with its environment.
The sense of an internal self or perceiver gives individuals a frame of reference to process the information they receive. There are obvious advantages to believing there to be an "I" that needs feeding, protecting, and to interact with other "I"s.

There is in fact an evolutionary explanation for consciousness. It won't kill you to look (http://www.pnas.org/content/89/16/7320.abstract) things (http://www.rpi.edu/~brings/EVOL/evol6/evol6.html) up (http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Brain-and-Cognitive-Sciences/9-00Fall-2004/LectureNotes/index.htm).

Again, yes, this is so clearly obvious to me that I am genuinely surprised anyone wastes their efforts on trying to refute it.
Ignoring refutations of your beliefs does not make you right.

The God-Mind is obviously a huge step from our limited awareness. But, then, any theory that attempts to expain why there is a Universe is going to be pretty big by necessity.
You're admitting it's a huge step away from the sole basis you have for asserting it. It was already shown that you're attributing abilities to the God-mind that no humans possess, and therefore your analogy fails.

I would go much further than this. Whatever the Universe and all the objective phenomena within it are, modern physics has clearly shown them to be without any substance whatsoever in the traditional view of the term.

Atoms and particles are not "uncuttable". And even if their massless state is down to superstrings or loop quantum gravity they're still ultimately just information/laws.

This is very good for theistic theories and very bad for atheistic theories.
Yes, meanwhile physical causes can alter or destroy consciousness. You can hardly claim that consciousness is "uncuttable." The fact that there are unknowns in physics does not prove an alternate woo-theory true.

We can't even imagine a system in which information can store itself! At least materialism had this going for it until physics outgrew it.

God-Mind is the only real contender left.
The argument from incredulity must truly be potent if it can sweep the field of all other contenders by default. Fortunately it can't.

The atheist faith in materialism/physicalism is wholly without logic, reason or rationality. Information needs a mind to exist and be information. Without a mind it wouldn't be information - it would be nothing. And the only way for it not to be nothing would be if it were some kind of permanent (i.e. "uncuttable") self-sustaining and self-perpetuating substance occupying spacetime - and there isn't any!
No, you're equivocating the term. "Information," like the term "law," is a label we use for our understanding of what we observe. Your argument is no more coherent than the one creationists use in claiming that "laws" exist and laws require a lawgiver.

[plumjam]

Plumjam,

OK, I think I see the problem. I am using the commonly accepted definition of "knowledge", which is "justified true belief".
What you are describing is more akin to the common usage of the word "faith", which is belief held strongly (in the same way that we hold to beliefs we call knowledge), with that belief being accompanied by a feeling "this is right".
I agree that we are using 'to know' slightly differently. But I disagree that you can misrepresent me as using 'to know' as a form of faith. Bit of naughty sleight of hand by you there, Waspy.
I am using 'to know' as deriving from experience, without stipulating that that experience needs to be able to be translated into useful/accurate communications to other minds.

Experiences do not arrive with justification, though they may arrive with the feeling "this is right". Justification is a process that involves analysis, which involves comparison. There is no comparison possible between the fundamental substance and anything else.
There is legitimate comparison between experience of fundamentality and experience of non-fundamentality. Those who seriously claim to have experienced fundamentality typically compare it to (as less real than) non-fundamentality (the phenomenal world). After their experience they forevermore treat the phenomenal world as less real than the world they experienced as fundamental.

We simply are not speaking of commensurate things, which means that we cannot move forward. We will simply have to agree to disagree.
What do you make of the experiences of mystics throughout recorded human history?

[rocketdodger]

Why do all of these discussions always return to the same point -- it's all about the evidence?

Because the evidence supports a conclusion different from what they want it to support.

Like yesterday I found out I only have 5k in the bank. I took that account summary and marked 10000 ziLLiOn in front of the 5! Now I am rich, and anyone who thinks otherwise will have to explain why my account summary says I have 10000 ziLLiOn 5k dollars.

Dur.

[HypnoPsi]

You're making the claim, positing a God to explain away everything you don't understand, therefore the burden of proof is on you.


My only claim here is that God is the most parsimonious theory to explain existence when set against atheist theories like materialism or physicalism (however you choose to describe them). That's it. Nothing more.

Aside from that, I can no more prove God than you or any other atheist can prove that the Universe and everything in it is self-sustaining and self-perpetuating or that computers are conscious.

The burden of proof is equal yet there seems to be no way either of us can even begin to prove our respective theories. All we can do is consider the logic of either theory.

To that end, if you want to try to claim that atheistic views are more parsimonious with the data then let's here your explanation?

What is materialism/physicalism predicated on? What's its foundation?

Awareness of our individual consciousness doesn't give us a logical basis to assume that there's a supreme uber-consciousness upon which the entirety of reality is contingent. The most it allows us to do is assume the existence of an equal or lesser consciousness. For those, at least, we do have some evidence.


Wrong. The very reason for positing God or matter is that we're trying to find the best theory to explain why there is a Universe. (If that wasn't the case we wouldn't even asking the question.) A smaller or equal consciousness won't cut it.

Fine - so God, to you, is a massive leap. It matters none. Materialism is still an even bigger leap since it's not predicated on anything at all regardless of the distance between the foundation and posited solution.


Meanwhile, you have failed to demonstrate that the causality works the same the other way, that thoughts can alter or recreate reality.


I disagree. Psi experiments have, to me and many others, definitely pushed the boudaries of what thought can do. But you're missing the point. Even if there were no psi experiments ever done, God would still be a more parsimonious theory of what sustains existence than some imaginary magic powder that isn't predicated on anything known.

~
HypnoPsi

[Silentknight]

Atheists/materialists don't have the slightest shred of evidence for any of it. It's pure smoke and mirrors. 100% absolute blind-faith.

The hey day of this whole atheism/skepticism/materialism movement is well and truly over - as much due to its own flaws as anything else.

The more someone wants to be a good atheist/skeptic/materialist then the more they'll have to defend, explain and answer the issues and questions that the likes of Malerin, PlumJam and myself have been pointing out.

And there's lots of very annoyed theists out there to answer to...
You don't get to make an idiotic appeal to pity if you're going to make idiotic appeal to the consequences like this. Your empty threat of a statement looks completely foolish next to your argument from persecution from before.

The fact that the solving of scientific mysteries in turn uncovers previously inconceivable mysteries demonstrates a strength of the method, not a weakness. The more we find out, the better the questions we can ask, and the deeper the mysteries we can explore. You would take the easy way out, not only cramming God into the gaps, but also insisting that we set up barriers to the kinds of questions science is allowed to ask. Pure ignorance.

Really? Completely understand? As in to the level of getting Malerin's colour blind scientists to see red?
All of the progress that has been made in treating sensory or cognitive defects has come from medical science, which takes a materialist approach in treating the brain as a bodily organ, as opposed to saying the mind is magical. Electrical stimulation of the brain has long been proven to trigger sensory experiences in patients; this is old research. One day it may be possible, through stem cell therapy or advanced neurosurgery, to correct problems such as colorblindness.

In the meantime you're welcome to sit there, cross your legs, close your eyes, and hum to yourself, in hopes that your psi powers can heal people, but you're not likely to accomplish anything.

It doesn't matter if the materialistic theory of some orderly mechanical universe causes less questions after the fact or if the God theory causes a million - in your mind. (In my mind the materialistic one causes a million more than the God theory!)

(snip)

God-Mind is predicated on a known. Matter isn't predicated on anything - especially, though not exclusively, as a theory of information that sustains itself.
Really? So we have known examples of human minds that can create or alter reality directly? I suppose we also have known examples of repeatable mystical experiences that work for all people at all times, regardless of their religious upbringing, right?

[articulett]

Even if there were no psi experiments ever done, God would still be a more parsimonious theory of what sustains existence than some imaginary magic powder that isn't predicated on anything known.

~
HypnoPsi


and temporal lobe epilepsy would be an even more parsimonious explanation for your god than anything it is you claim he's the explanation for.

http://www.welcometoyourbrain.com/2008/02/spirit-possession-and-religious.html

Your god is not predicated on anything known. We have not shown that any sort of consciousness can exist outside of a living brain-- we've also shown that humans are readily prone to delusions of such.

[rocketdodger]

God-Mind is predicated on a known. Matter isn't predicated on anything - especially, though not exclusively, as a theory of information that sustains itself.

The only way you know of your consciousness is via your interaction with non-consciousness. If you are sure of one, you have to be sure of the other.

Matter is predicated on non-consciousness, which is also a known. So you can stop pretending the issue is as black and white as you would prefer to have uneducated readers think.

[rocketdodger]

What do you make of the experiences of mystics throughout recorded human history?

What do you make of the experience of people seeing the Earth as flat throughout recorded human history?

These questions have the same answer.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I agree that we are using 'to know' slightly differently. But I disagree that you can misrepresent me as using 'to know' as a form of faith. Bit of naughty sleight of hand by you there, Waspy.
I am using 'to know' as deriving from experience, without stipulating that that experience needs to be able to be translated into useful/accurate communications to other minds.

It's not sleight of hand. That is what "faith" means -- belief that is held strongly based on some experience. Some people use it to mean belief in the absence of evidence, but that is wrong. There is always some evidence on which any belief is based, if only a feeling that some experience is correct.

If the experience cannot be examined, then it cannot be call "knowledge" properly speaking. You can use the colloquial form of "know", as in "I know that God exists because I felt His presence", but that is faith, not knowledge. If we cannot agree on word definitions, then we cannot discuss matters since equivocation is a ready danger. The same thing happened with Malerin when he insisted that my use of the word evidence somehow meant that I believed that the evidence was necessarily correct (proof). That sort of equivocation only leads to misunderstanding.

By using the word "faith" I am not calling it something bad, regardless of the way many of the people here treat that word. It is simply a reference to a type of belief (knowledge is belief as well, but with justification) that is held strongly because of a feeling.


There is legitimate comparison between experience of fundamentality and experience of non-fundamentality. Those who seriously claim to have experienced fundamentality typically compare it to (as less real than) non-fundamentality (the phenomenal world). After their experience they forevermore treat the phenomenal world as less real than the world they experienced as fundamental.

I know people do this. That should be a red flag telling you either that they did not experience fundamental reality or that their attempt to describe it is fundamentally wrong, if for no other reason than that the experience is of something that they feel is not describable by language. I think it is a reflection of humans being human. Whatever the experience actually *is*, we all feel the need to explain and communicate.


What do you make of the experiences of mystics throughout recorded human history?

I think they are experiences. They may be accurate reflections of ultimate reality. They may be experiences based on a common neurological pathway. I don't see a clear way of deciding between the two based on the experiences themselves. Interpretation of what those experiences represent depends on a surrounding framework.

Whatever the answer is, we do have ways of thinking about this issue that do not need to involve reference to basic neurology. We would need to look at two things -- human psychology and the actual accounts.

If the accounts all consist of -- "it was incredible, there is no way to express it in words" -- and nothing else, then they would pass the first test. We would simply have to categorize those experiences as potentially reflecting ultimate reality or potentially reflecting something else, like a common human experience based in our psychology, whatever the ontology. If the accounts have culturally important differences, as with many NDE claims and claims of reincarnation, then the answer could very likely come from basic human psychology (again, whatever the ontology).

If we can recreate the same sort of experience through some "physical" means, that should also give us pause that there is a physical explanation for the experience.

Regardless, it isn't as though there is only one potential explanation. You may lean more one way than the other -- experience of fundamental existent rather than experience arising in human psychology -- but that is not knowledge.

[rocketdodger]

What is materialism/physicalism predicated on? What's its foundation?

Reality.

Wrong. The very reason for positing God or matter is that we're trying to find the best theory to explain why there is a Universe. (If that wasn't the case we wouldn't even asking the question.) A smaller or equal consciousness won't cut it.

Fine - so God, to you, is a massive leap. It matters none. Materialism is still an even bigger leap since it's not predicated on anything at all regardless of the distance between the foundation and posited solution.

Let us play another game.

Suppose we agree with you. A God-mind is the best solution.

What now?

I disagree. Psi experiments have, to me and many others, definitely pushed the boudaries of what thought can do. But you're missing the point. Even if there were no psi experiments ever done, God would still be a more parsimonious theory of what sustains existence than some imaginary magic powder that isn't predicated on anything known.


Yes, I finally see what you mean. I agree. What now?

[HypnoPsi]

My theism has always, for as long as I can remember, been based on my absence of belief in the idea that objective reality is just some self-sustaining thingy or other and my absence of belief that my mind/conciousness is solely down to a couple of pounds of protein in my skull.In other words, the argument from personal incredulity.


No more than an atheists argument. So, some folks have lived their lives absent the belief in a consciousness sustaining the Universe and others have lived theirs absent the belief that it's all self-sustaining in some way.

What's your point?

All we can do now is ask which theory is the most parsimonious - the one predicated on something we know can store and create information (consciousness) or the one predicated on a wholly made up gap filler with about as much going for it as fairy dust. (Or less even - since at least some people claim to have actually seen fairies!!)


I never said that materialism was devoid of assumptions. I explained several times how these assumptions were reasonable to make


No you haven't. And actually looking at the Universe leads doesn't lead us to the belief in any substance whatsoever. It only leads us to information and laws. How then is it reasonable to assume that information/laws are really material and/or somehow self-sustaining?

~
HypnoPsi

[Silentknight]

To that end, if you want to try to claim that atheistic views are more parsimonious with the data then let's here your explanation?

What is materialism/physicalism predicated on? What's its foundation?
I gave you two reasons off the top of my head, which are demonstrable causality and repeatable observation. It makes no difference what you believe "matter" to be made of in the end. It still has specific properties and behaviors that we can test.

The idea that matter can be chopped up with practically no end in sight is actually a strike against your consciousness theory. Chop consciousness just once and it disappears. I think we know which one is predicated on question-begging.

Wrong. The very reason for positing God or matter is that we're trying to find the best theory to explain why there is a Universe. (If that wasn't the case we wouldn't even asking the question.) A smaller or equal consciousness won't cut it.
Yet that's all you have any basis to posit. You can't just make stuff up in order to fit the unknowns. If God-mind is a "theory" then what predictions does it make and how can we test it?

Fine - so God, to you, is a massive leap. It matters none. Materialism is still an even bigger leap since it's not predicated on anything at all regardless of the distance between the foundation and posited solution.
Tu quoque, either-or fallacy, and more burden shifting.

I disagree. Psi experiments have, to me and many others, definitely pushed the boudaries of what thought can do. But you're missing the point. Even if there were no psi experiments ever done, God would still be a more parsimonious theory of what sustains existence than some imaginary magic powder that isn't predicated on anything known.
You've failed to provide any evidence for these psi experiments. Even if there were a tested mechanism by which people can make things happen without touching them, that in no way rules out a physical cause. The brain generating an electromagnetic field, the emission of bioelectric energy from the body, or even an undiscovered force acting within the brain are all more likely than your magical cause.

[HypnoPsi]

'The universe behaves as though there is a fundamental underlying 'substance' and that this 'substance' is what sustains existence.'


This is only true when you observer reality through the filter of classical physics. From a quantum viewpoint things just doen't look the same at all.

~
HypnoPsi

[Silentknight]

No more than an atheists argument. So, some folks have lived their lives absent the belief in a consciousness sustaining the Universe and others have lived theirs absent the belief that it's all self-sustaining in some way.
The problem is that even if we assume that both theories are wrong, your theory is still wrong, therefore you can't use it as a premise to draw conclusions about models of reality.

No you haven't. And actually looking at the Universe leads doesn't lead us to the belief in any substance whatsoever. It only leads us to information and laws. How then is it reasonable to assume that information/laws are really material and/or somehow self-sustaining?
Your ignoring my previous arguments about potential Matrix worlds and what the implications would be in terms of our interaction with reality in no way means I never stated them. Check the early pages of this thread, since you seem to require everything be pointed out.

Your question is no different from the creationist assumption that matter and energy had to "come from" nothingness, or that without God, it would all disappear. I would ask you how consciousness or the God-mind are self-sustaining, but it would be moot, because several people have already explained to you how fragile consciousness is. It's not special, divine, or supernatural, regardless of how much you'd like to think it is, and regardless of how insulting you believe its "reduction" to physical processes is.

[paximperium]

All we can do now is ask which theory is the most parsimonious - the one predicated on something we know can store and create information (consciousness) or the one predicated on a wholly made up gap filler with about as much going for it as fairy dust. (Or less even - since at least some people claim to have actually seen fairies!!)
Really? Consciousness can exist without a brain? Please do expand on your nonsense.

No you haven't. And actually looking at the Universe leads doesn't lead us to the belief in any substance whatsoever. It only leads us to information and laws. How then is it reasonable to assume that information/laws are really material and/or somehow self-sustaining?
Translation: You don't know everything therefore you are wrong.

[paximperium]

This is only true when you observer reality through the filter of classical physics. From a quantum viewpoint things just doen't look the same at all.

Someone needs to name the "Quantum Theory explains my woo" fallacy.

[HypnoPsi]

I await your active defense of my objection that you are extending your analogy too far.


"Too far" is subjective. I don't consider it too far. And, as I've pointed out in another post, it's not as far as the magic powder theory.

Why do you keep repeating that there is no evidence for a self-sustaining universe?


Because there isn't.

The trees in my yard are self-sustaining.


I think you'll find they are sustained by the Sun, rain and the nutrients from the soil.

You're doing an awful lot of armchair pyschoanalyzing of everyone else.

No, I don't. Stay on topic.

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

I'm a bit late to this thread. Has an idealist yet posited a reasonable argument that matter is an illusion that does not also lead to solipsism?

Psi. Humans have got it and computers aint.

BTW, I'm not an idealist. I'm a theist and phenomenologist if that matters.

~
HypnoPsi

[paximperium]

"Too far" is subjective. I don't consider it too far. And, as I've pointed out in another post, it's not as far as the magic powder theory.
Let's assume the very panultimate basis of reality is made up of magic powder or mind stuff, how does that change anything we know about it?


I think you'll find they are sustained by the Sun, rain and the nutrients from the soil.
Move it much further back. What sustains the sun? The solar system? The galaxy, cosmos etc. Or move it further into a molecule, atom, sub-particle etc.

Care to name one external magic mind process needed to sustain any of these regressions?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The only essential facet is that our final theorised model/solution should deal with all the data available in as neat a way as possible with as few (preferably zero) unknowns as possible in the construction of the final theorised model/solution.

In brief:

1) Deal with all the data (don't leave out bits you don't like)
2) Do it parsimoniously (don't bring in unknowns)
My first reaction to this is that you can't possibly be serious that your god theory wins over physicalism. You must surely be joking.

My next reaction is that this demonstrates most admirably that different people simply do not see the world the same way.


God-Mind is predicated on a known.
No, no, no, it is not. It is a complete disanalogy to personal human consciousness, which cannot create universes, cannot remember anything, cannot split itself into billions of individual minds, cannot maintain the regularity of the external world, is not everlasting, etc., etc.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

My only claim here is that God is the most parsimonious theory to explain existence when set against atheist theories like materialism or physicalism (however you choose to describe them). That's it. Nothing more.
Your theory: God maintains the universe.

Physicalism: The universe maintains itself (until further evidence suggests otherwise).

Now please perform the parsimony analysis so we can understand your point.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

"Too far" is subjective. I don't consider it too far. And, as I've pointed out in another post, it's not as far as the magic powder theory.
It's too far. Really.

I think you'll find they are sustained by the Sun, rain and the nutrients from the soil.
And those things are likewise sustained. This is evidence for a self-sustaining universe. When you can find the thing outside the universe that is sustaining it, please let us know.

~~ Paul

[HypnoPsi]

My conclusion is simply that there are documented (here) instances of people being mistaken about their own perception of their own consciousness.

That doesn't mean anything other than what it means.


It doesn't even mean what you think it means. As I've said preporatory mental activity says nothing about conscious decision making.

If I ask a subject to more either hand to push a button and then a few seconds later I see the preparation build up in either the left or right side of their frontal lobes (for the opposing hand) then why didn't I see it when I first gave them the instruction? (That, after all, is when the conscious decision was really made to carry out the task.)

If I were a subject in this experiment I'd probably be going through a few false "should I, shouldn't I press the button now" moments until the final decision was made.

Your whole interpretation of this experiment seems to assume something very much like a computer model of consciousness whereby there is a clear route from an instruction being given to an action being carried out.

That type of thinking just doesn't apply to human beings. From the moment the subjects were given the instruction to move they were consciously preparing for it. The conclusions you are drawing from this whole thing just aren't warranted. The subjects answers to when they consciously prepared to move would likely be very different from when they consciously decided to move.

And even then, as noted, weren't they preparing to move from the get-go? So how would a subject even interpret such a question about when they prepared to move? Would they guess when they most prepared to move or something?

You don't know enough about all the thoughts motive and impulses to assume anything here.

~
HypnoPsi

[Silentknight]

I'm implanting an irresistible suggestion that makes my opponents ridiculous--

Whoops, houseplants spontaneously caught fire again. This might take a minute.

And sure enough...
"Too far" is subjective. I don't consider it too far. And, as I've pointed out in another post, it's not as far as the magic powder theory.


Great, now that I've gotten it to work, I can't figure out how to shut it off. HELP!

[HypnoPsi]

What questions, other than the who, where, what, why, when of dogmatic scripture, does theism open?


Why would we look at dogmatic scripture for an answer? My leanings would probably be more towards future research into such things as NDE's - and possibly even mediums, so long as good, stringent, controls were in place.

Did you really think about that statement before you made it? I find that hard to believe.


Did you think about this criticism before you made it. I find that impossible to believe.

Real materialists, like Pixy, Paul, and myself (to list a few) fully accept that there is a hard limit to what we can know.I never suggested you didn't - nor would I.Yes, you did. Your entire participation on this thread is tantamount to it.


Either find a quote from me where I claim that all you "real materialists" don't recognise there is a "hard limit" to what you can know or don't make baseless accusations.

We have told you over and over that we don't know about the fundamental substance. We don't care about it, because we know we can't know it. All we are concerned with is the fundamental properties.


Which for an atheist is clearly that it is uncreated; i.e. self-sustaining, self-perpetuting or self-generating or whatever. Heck, call it auto-sustaining/perpetuating or generating if you like. It all amounts to the same thing, as I am quite sure you fully understand.

All that seems to be the case here is that you know full well that atheism leads to a position about the Universe that just cannot be logically or reasonably defended. Therefore you're trying to redefine things so that there is no question to answer.

The same exact thing has been happening in this thread with consciousness and just saying it's information irocessing or whatever - as if ignoring subjective experience while using cognitive sounding words like "self-referencing" and whatever will make the issue go away.

Myself, malerin and PlumJam are all trying to debate the points while all you lot seem to do is debate the points away!

How long are atheists going to have to go through this - and I'm talking about the well known, public, ones too here - before they realise that people just aren't buying it?

And your consistent response is "but materialists assert matter is all there is, and this is less parsimonious than asserting mind is all there is." wtf? Can you read? This is literally the third time I have told you that you are arguing with a strawman. And everyone else has done the same. When will you listen? Never?

What are you lying about now?

But that is utter stupidity akin to an amazon warrior shaking his spear at a helicopter gunship and accusing the pilot of being a coward -- if you wanted a good argument, you should have built one. Don't get mad at me because your chosen position leaves you wallowing in jungle muck with the rest of the backwards natives.


Obviously, I am not the one who's gone a little bit over the edge here....

What a result indeed! All one needs to do is point out to atheists:

1) That there is absolutely no logic or sense in a Universe sustained on an unknown thing with unknown properties predicated on nothing known.

2) That there is absolutely no logic or sense in imbuing toaster ovens with consciousness.

3) That science is about thesis defence as much as skepticism and that this is the very thing that makes it a nobel pursuit and that therefore they shouldn't try to argue valid points off the table by redefining them.

And they spit out the pacifier and throw a tantrum!

Same stuff. Different day. How anyone can honestly be surprised that opposition is growing exponentially against this whole atheist/skeptic/materialist movement is amazing.

If only we'd all just see it your way, eh RD?

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

What does theist materialism/physicalism entail?


Find a theist materialist/physicalist and ask them. (Let me know the answer as well.)

How would we determine whether a robot has phenomenal experience?


I don't even know why anyone would look for phenomenal experience in a robot in the first place.

Why don't you try Pixy. He's not only quite thoroughly convinced that computers think, he also claims to "completely understand" it.

~
HypnoPsi

[articulett]

Do you think plumjam and hypnopsi actually understand each other? Does any one else understand them? How about malerin? My theory is that they all these nebulous beliefs and they all "interpret" things in a way that almost any nebulous phrase seems to support their woo. Like palmistry, you know? Oh, and Nick too.

I just can't nail down a coherent line of thought in any of them... yet, clearly they imagine that they are coming across as making sense to each other, right?-- if not vast amounts of unnamed others that presumably live some place other than in their head. But if no one can sum up their main argument or even their main point, then how do they continue to imagine they are eloquent and speaking "deep truths' or saying something coherent even?

I read it, and it seems like everyone is making sense and sounds so smart and interesting and even funny-- and then this cloud of woo descends and I can't find the point, and the questions all seem loaded, and the inquirers seem incapable of understanding the answer-- I feel like I'm slogging through mental sludge... a word salad...

I think this is some sort of "woo mental trick" to help them believe whatever it is that they feel so good or special or "in on" for believing. I actually don't think there's an coherency at all in their beliefs. It makes them feel "good", so they need it to be true. They help make it true in their heads by spinning it over and over here so they can imagine that they've examined the believe critically and that it "stood up".

But they really just knock science and others down, and never present a coherent picture or evidence of what they believe. They seem to see themselves as wiser than everyone else, but I suspect it's because they are too "afflicted" to realize they are the nutty ones... they are as nutty as those other cultists and crazies they dismiss. I wonder if I would have sounded that way if they had skeptic forums in my woo days?

[Z]

1) That there is absolutely no logic or sense in a Universe sustained on an unknown thing with unknown properties predicated on nothing known.

Agreed - such as a 'god'. Its nature and properties are unknown (aside from fairy stories and ancient myths), and no close analogy even begins to appear to make us believe such a thing is necessary.

2) That there is absolutely no logic or sense in imbuing toaster ovens with consciousness.

Of course not - what is a toaster oven going to do with consciousness? We save that for our more advanced machines - such as our PCs.

3) That science is about thesis defence as much as skepticism and that this is the very thing that makes it a nobel pursuit and that therefore they shouldn't try to argue valid points off the table by redefining them.

Science is all about solid, clear definitions. The problem with most of the silliness you expound on is that the more clearly defined it gets, the less it exists.

Same stuff. Different day. How anyone can honestly be surprised that opposition is growing exponentially against this whole atheist/skeptic/materialist movement is amazing.

I'm not surprised - human IQ is rapidly dropping, thanks to mass media, conservative leadership, and vanishing ethics. And any drop in IQ, population-wise, tends to lead in inceases in poor mental performance - i.e. lack of skepticisim, growth of mysticism, belief in faeries and spirits.

(But don't point out that his imagined 'opposition' is actually shrinking rapidly, when we look at the recorded history of humanity...)

[articulett]

The woo always think materialism is about to be "overturned" just as they imagine evolution will be. They imagine that their ignorance proves that an ever growing body of data doesn't exist to disprove what they desperately wish to be true. It's a Michael Egnor Discovery Institute meme. As if saying it (and repeating it ad nauseum) could make it so. It does become a self-fulfilling prophesy for believers just as the waco cult believed that it was the "end of the world"-- and it was-- for them.

Monkeys are just about to fly out of my butt. Any theory which negates this is just about to be overturned. (repeat ad infinitum for more truthiness power!)

[Z]

As science grows, materialism grows. Or, should I say, monism grows. After all, all that quantum stuff is enough to make one believe sub-atomic particles are composed of ideas after all... :D

[Silentknight]

All we can do now is ask which theory is the most parsimonious - the one predicated on something we know can store and create information (consciousness) or the one predicated on a wholly made up gap filler with about as much going for it as fairy dust. (Or less even - since at least some people claim to have actually seen fairies!!)
Really? Consciousness can exist without a brain? Please do expand on your nonsense.
Well, the God-mind theory has clearly been asserted, yet there doesn't appear to have been any brains behind the claim. QED. :D

Myself, malerin and PlumJam are all trying to debate the points while all you lot seem to do is debate the points away!

How long are atheists going to have to go through this - and I'm talking about the well known, public, ones too here - before they realise that people just aren't buying it?
Ignoring the arguments and evidence that clash with your worldview doesn't make you right.

Obviously, I am not the one who's gone a little bit over the edge here....
Yeah, as your arguments from persecution, your claims about an atheist conspiracy to brainwash students, your strawmen about atheism requiring faith, your willful ignorance of any evidence that disagrees with you, and the claims about psi experiments that you have refused to back up, clearly demonstrate.

What a result indeed! All one needs to do is point out to atheists:

1) That there is absolutely no logic or sense in a Universe sustained on an unknown thing with unknown properties predicated on nothing known.

2) That there is absolutely no logic or sense in imbuing toaster ovens with consciousness.

3) That science is about thesis defence as much as skepticism and that this is the very thing that makes it a nobel pursuit and that therefore they shouldn't try to argue valid points off the table by redefining them.

And they spit out the pacifier and throw a tantrum!

Same stuff. Different day. How anyone can honestly be surprised that opposition is growing exponentially against this whole atheist/skeptic/materialist movement is amazing.

If only we'd all just see it your way, eh RD?
That's a funny impression of Yrreg's claims, but what does it have to do with anything? There's no way that such copious amounts of straw could possibly have been made as a serious argument.


I'd ask you to demonstrate that consciousness can exist without a brain, but it would probably be a futile question, since you'd just try to turn it on its head with one of the following cop-outs:

1) "I don't have to because atheism requires even more faith!"
2) "You atheists are mean! Well just you wait, because one day you'll all have to answer to the wrath of theists and God himself!"
3) "Consciousness is because it is, and it doesn't have to come from anywhere! What? No, that's not circular!"
4) "We have psi experiments! That proves everything!"


Um, yeah.

[Z]

Remember, SK - according to HypnoPsi, NDEs are solid proof of consciousness without a brain.

That, and American politicians. Or is that just conscious behavior without a brain?

[articulett]

Wow, we've proven NDEs and psi experiences! Time for the MDC. As soon as we get the data we can refine and improve our understanding just like we have with every other true phenomenon.

Unless it's just the latest confirmation biased woo fad... like phrenology or "the Secret" or "synchronicity" or Ouija boards or Bigfoot.

For some reason, despite tons of believers and tons of anecdote... there just never seems to be an iota of measurable evidence. But it appears to make hypnosci feel good and wise-- reminiscent of Interesting Ian, I think.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Find a theist materialist/physicalist and ask them. (Let me know the answer as well.)
So you don't think there are any theists who believe that god created the physical world and then left it alone to work by itself?


I don't even know why anyone would look for phenomenal experience in a robot in the first place.
Perhaps, but how would we determine whether a robot has phenomenal experience?

~~ Paul

[PixyMisa]

So you don't think there are any theists who believe that god created the physical world and then left it alone to work by itself?
Francis Collins would be very surprised.

Perhaps, but how would we determine whether a robot has phenomenal experience?
The same way we do for humans.

[PixyMisa]

Why would we look at dogmatic scripture for an answer? My leanings would probably be more towards future research into such things as NDE's - and possibly even mediums, so long as good, stringent, controls were in place.
You do realise that the moment stringent controls are put in place, the claimed effects disappear? That this always happens?

Which for an atheist is clearly that it is uncreated; i.e. self-sustaining, self-perpetuting or self-generating or whatever.None of those apply.

Heck, call it auto-sustaining/perpetuating or generating if you like.None of those apply either.

It just exists. All the terms you seek to apply are concepts imported from your own bizarre belief system, and nave no meaning under materialism. This is the same problem idealists and dualists have had in coming to grips with materialism since before Berkeley.

It all amounts to the same thing, as I am quite sure you fully understand.It all amounts to nothing at all.

All that seems to be the case here is that you know full well that atheism leads to a position about the Universe that just cannot be logically or reasonably defended.A curious assertion. Perhaps you could back it up with evidence or reasoning?

No?

The same exact thing has been happening in this thread with consciousness and just saying it's information irocessingWhich it clearly is.

or whateverSorry, no whatevers. Just information processing.

as if ignoring subjective experience while using cognitive sounding words like "self-referencing" and whatever will make the issue go away.Again, no whatevers are required.

What's more, we do not ignore subjective experience at all. Subjective experience is information processing.

Myself, malerin and PlumJam are all trying to debate the points while all you lot seem to do is debate the points away!Because you are inventing problems that do not exist (while ignoring the gaping voids in your own philosophies).

How long are atheists going to have to go through this - and I'm talking about the well known, public, ones too here - before they realise that people just aren't buying it?Show us an actual problem with our argument, and we will care whether you are buying it.

1) That there is absolutely no logic or sense in a Universe sustained on an unknown thing with unknown properties predicated on nothing known.Then why do you keep claiming that such a thing exists?

2) That there is absolutely no logic or sense in imbuing toaster ovens with consciousness.That's something for you to take up with the engineers who design the toaster ovens. The fact that toaster ovens are conscious remains.

3) That science is about thesis defence as much as skepticism and that this is the very thing that makes it a nobel pursuit and that therefore they shouldn't try to argue valid points off the table by redefining them.What?

And they spit out the pacifier and throw a tantrum!Who does?

Same stuff. Different day. How anyone can honestly be surprised that opposition is growing exponentially against this whole atheist/skeptic/materialist movement is amazing.Exponentially, eh?

What's the exponent? 0.5?

[PixyMisa]

My only claim here is that God is the most parsimonious theory to explain existence when set against atheist theories like materialism or physicalism (however you choose to describe them). That's it. Nothing more.
Then list all the properties of your God. In complete detail.

If God has fewer properties than matter, then that is a more parsimonious assumption than matter itself. However, we have to ask, if God has fewer properties than matter, how does he give rise to matter?

Aside from that, I can no more prove God than you or any other atheist can prove that the Universe and everything in it is self-sustaining and self-perpetuating or that computers are conscious.
Except for the wee problem that we can observe that the Universe exists, and continues to exist, and we can prove that computers are conscious.

Whereas your God is nowhere to be found in evidence or logic.

The burden of proof is equal yet there seems to be no way either of us can even begin to prove our respective theories. All we can do is consider the logic of either theory.
Yes, indeed.

To that end, if you want to try to claim that atheistic views are more parsimonious with the data then let's here your explanation?

What is materialism/physicalism predicated on? What's its foundation?
The material is what is.

Wrong. The very reason for positing God or matter is that we're trying to find the best theory to explain why there is a Universe.
Why do you assume there's an answer?

Fine - so God, to you, is a massive leap. It matters none. Materialism is still an even bigger leap since it's not predicated on anything at all regardless of the distance between the foundation and posited solution.
It's predicated on every observation ever. We observe a Universe. Materialism simply states that the Universe we observe is what exists.

I disagree. Psi experiments have, to me and many others, definitely pushed the boudaries of what thought can do.
Nope.

No parapsychological experiment with proper controls has shown any evidence for any effect of any kind.

But you're missing the point. Even if there were no psi experiments ever done, God would still be a more parsimonious theory of what sustains existence than some imaginary magic powder that isn't predicated on anything known.
Infinite fail.

Does your God have limits? No? Then it's infinitely unparsimonious. It matters not how short the label you attach, what matters is the multiplication of assumptions. God is not a single assumption, but an infinite set of assumptions.

Materialism simply says: The Universe we observe is what is.

[gentlehorse]

My only claim here is that God is the most parsimonious theory to explain existence when set against atheist theories like materialism or physicalism (however you choose to describe them). That's it. Nothing more.

Aside from that, I can no more prove God than you or any other atheist can prove that the Universe and everything in it is self-sustaining and self-perpetuating or that computers are conscious.

The burden of proof is equal yet there seems to be no way either of us can even begin to prove our respective theories. All we can do is consider the logic of either theory.

To that end, if you want to try to claim that atheistic views are more parsimonious with the data then let's here your explanation?

You assume the existence of one more entity than do atheists. If a god-created universe is indistinguishable from a self-sustaining, self-perpetuating universe, to posit the existence of a god, particularly considering the fact that there is no evidence of one, is less parsimonious than an atheistic worldview.

What is materialism/physicalism predicated on? What's its foundation?
That a consistent, mind-independent universe exists.

Wrong. The very reason for positing God or matter is that we're trying to find the best theory to explain why there is a Universe. (If that wasn't the case we wouldn't even asking the question.) A smaller or equal consciousness won't cut it.

Another (implied) assumption-- To ask why the universe exists implies that there is a reason. There is no reason to assume that this is the case.

I disagree. Psi experiments have, to me and many others, definitely pushed the boudaries of what thought can do. But you're missing the point. Even if there were no psi experiments ever done, God would still be a more parsimonious theory of what sustains existence than some imaginary magic powder that isn't predicated on anything known.

~
HypnoPsi

Psi experiment aside, I'm sure others have pointed out that a god theory is no theory at all in that it's untestable and unfalsifiable. That said, a god explanation of the universe involves an additional entity but yields no more information than a godless explanation. Consequently, a godless explanation is more parsimonious.

[PixyMisa]

What the heck?

I find myself largely in agreement with both Nick and Gentlehorse?!

I don't think the world is going to last until 2012 at this rate! :eek:

[Malerin]

After 12 pages, I think we can distill theism and materialism into the following:

Theism: God, a conscious being, exists.
Materialism: My toaster, a conscious thing, exists.

And atheists think theists are loopy?

[PixyMisa]

After 12 pages, I think we can distill theism and materialism into the following:

Theism: God, a conscious being, exists.
Materialism: My toaster, a conscious thing, exists.

And atheists think theists are loopy?
Well, let's see.

We have evidence for toasters. For example, we can see them, touch them, burn our fingers on them, electrocute ourselves sticking knives in them. We spend money to buy them. We even, on occasion, use them to make toast.

Are they conscious? Sure, by Dennett's definition. I would say aware rather than conscious for the average toaster, but I'm sure there are toasters on the market that I would consider conscious (not just aware, but self-aware).

As for God... Nothing. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Not even a coherent definition.

[Malerin]

I would say aware rather than conscious for the average toaster, but I'm sure there are toasters on the market that I would consider conscious (not just aware, but self-aware).


Unintentionally hilarious (which makes it even funnier). I have to nominate this.

[paximperium]

Unintentionally hilarious (which makes it even funnier). I have to nominate this.
Keep flouting your ignorance. The rest of the world will continue to advance as you keep claiming that nothing else is real.

Although not a robot per se, Samsung is working on creating a refrigerator that will be the smartest refrigerator you will ever own. The reason for it being covered here on RobotsRule is because robots and A.I. (artificial intelligence) go hand in hand. According to this Samsung (http://www.samsung.com/) spokesman Chae Hee-kook, the refrigerator will use RFID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rfid) technology to track the items in your refrigerator. RFID stands for Radio-frequency identification. Tags are placed in many kinds of consumer goods that have RFID tags embedded in them allowing them to be tracked efficiently.
Using inventory levels set by the user, it will notify you when you are running low a particular item. Notification can happen in one of two intriguing ways:


The refrigerator will be able to send a shopping list of required groceries directly to your cell phone. So you may find yourself in the near future getting a call from you refrigerator instead of your significant other, asking you to pick some things up on the way home!
For participating grocery stores, it will be able to send your order directly to the store.

http://www.robotsrule.com/html/samsung-refrigerator.php

This fridge is likely more self aware than Malerin. While the machine reacts to its sense-data, Malerin will claim that it is not real and keep wasting hot air.

[PixyMisa]

Unintentionally hilarious (which makes it even funnier). I have to nominate this.
I'm glad you're amused. Would you care to indicate why you find it amusing?

[PixyMisa]

Keep flouting your ignorance.
Psst. Flaunting.

Funny, because most people make the mistake the other way.

[paximperium]

Psst. Flaunting.

Funny, because most people make the mistake the other way.
I stand corrected. I shall flaunt my willingness to admit mistakes unlike others.

[rocketdodger]

Psi. Humans have got it and computers aint.


Unless the computer is equipped with some kind of wireless communication device.

After all, that is your evidence for psi right? Purely non-physical communication?

[PixyMisa]

I'm a bit late to this thread. Has an idealist yet posited a reasonable argument that matter is an illusion that does not also lead to solipsism?

Psi. Humans have got it and computers aint.
This raises at least three questions:

1. What is your evidence that humans have this "psi"?
2. What is your evidence that computers do not have this "psi"?
3. What reasoning can you provide that connects the supposed existence of this "psi" to the claim that matter is an illusion?

[rocketdodger]

It doesn't even mean what you think it means. As I've said preporatory mental activity says nothing about conscious decision making.

... snip ...

You don't know enough about all the thoughts motive and impulses to assume anything here.


Saying "I made the decision at time X" is equivalent to "I had not made a decision at time X - t." Yet the data shows a decision could be predicted at time X - t.

This is a very simple result. A person didn't feel they had made a decision yet the outcome could be predicted.

Now you can redefine "conscious" and "subconscious" all you want in order to avoid admitting a point. Whatever. The fact remains that when a person says "I have not yet made a decision" it implies that they do not feel a decision has determined. The fact also remains that if a decision is predictable it has been determined -- in a probabalistic sense, of course.

And these results show that a person can be wrong about whether a decision of theirs is determined at time X - t.

[rocketdodger]

Why would we look at dogmatic scripture for an answer? My leanings would probably be more towards future research into such things as NDE's - and possibly even mediums, so long as good, stringent, controls were in place.

Oh.

I thought you were going to say something like "well if we suppose there was a God-mind, it raises questions we could use to tailor scientific research across the board and hopefully better understand the fundamentals of the universe and existence."

It is reassuring to know that, were everyone to accept a God-mind hypothesis, you would advocate research in near death experiences and mediums above all else.


Either find a quote from me where I claim that all you "real materialists" don't recognise there is a "hard limit" to what you can know or don't make baseless accusations.

You have insisted, in at least 10 separate posts, that materialists claim "matter" is "self-sustaining" and "self-creating." Which means within the hard limit of what we can know.

You have been told, in at least as many posts, that materialists assert such concepts are nonsense/unknowable. Which means past the hard limit of what we can know.

Since you assert that we propose concepts beyond knowledge, you assert that we don't recognize a hard limit to knowledge.


Which for an atheist is clearly that it is uncreated; i.e. self-sustaining, self-perpetuting or self-generating or whatever. Heck, call it auto-sustaining/perpetuating or generating if you like. It all amounts to the same thing, as I am quite sure you fully understand.

OOPS!!

Make that at least 11 posts!

All that seems to be the case here is that you know full well that atheism leads to a position about the Universe that just cannot be logically or reasonably defended. Therefore you're trying to redefine things so that there is no question to answer.

Yes I agree, if you ignore all evidence -- such as mathematics and the rest of science -- it cannot be defended. How weak! I am surprised anyone would buy into such a position! Now that you put it that way, I think I will become a theist.

The same exact thing has been happening in this thread with consciousness and just saying it's information irocessing or whatever - as if ignoring subjective experience while using cognitive sounding words like "self-referencing" and whatever will make the issue go away.

Since you are no longer addressing the points in this discussion, is it safe to assume that you are unable to muster sufficient counter-arguments?

Myself, malerin and PlumJam are all trying to debate the points while all you lot seem to do is debate the points away!

If by "trying to debate the points" you mean 'repeating attacks on strawmen while ignoring actual responses from materialists' then yes, you all are "trying to debate the points."

How long are atheists going to have to go through this - and I'm talking about the well known, public, ones too here - before they realise that people just aren't buying it?

You are right. "Expelled" did so well in theatres across the country.

Obviously, I am not the one who's gone a little bit over the edge here....

... snip ...

And they spit out the pacifier and throw a tantrum!

If you consider a well-written metaphorical insult to be a "tantrum" then yes, I throw tantrums all the time. That is why plumjam never responds to me anymore. He got tired of how my "tantrums" made him look in front of everyone else.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

This raises at least three questions:

1. What is your evidence that humans have this "psi"?
2. What is your evidence that computers do not have this "psi"?
3. What reasoning can you provide that connects the supposed existence of this "psi" to the claim that matter is an illusion?
And while we're at it, what is your evidence that humans have phenomenal experience? Immaterialists love to cite the zombie thought experiment, in which we make an exact physical duplicate of our world, but without human phenomenal experience. And yet those zombies are indistinguishable from us. Whatever method you come up with for determining whether something is conscious,* the zombie gives the same answer.

~~ Paul

* I note that HypnoPsi has not answered my question about how we know whether something is conscious.

[HypnoPsi]

Do you have any evidence of the consciousness of anyone besides yourself that is anything other than behavior?


As I've said, I believe in the evidence for a low level of psi ability in humans and that some NDE accounts are genuine.


Are you certain that your evidence of your own consciousness is not behavior as well?

I'm certain that I'm not inclined to redefine the "evidence of my own consciousness", as you call it, as behaviour and then, having leapt from subjective to objective uses of the term 'behaviour' carry on like I've not made the leap.

All so called (materialistic) research into consciousness is nothing more than, at the very best, cognitive modelling in terms of problem solving, ect.,.Even if this were true, so what?[/quote]


The way atheists do it is little more than just white-washing the facts. The objective and subjective realms are different things. Just using behaviouristic language drawn from information processing and cognitive psychology to describe both the subjective and objective realms does not lead to them both being the same thing.

It's nothing more than trying to get around the scientific rule that correlation is not causation by chasing your own tail.

I have an idea of the properties a thing must have for it to be knowable to a human -- material properties.


What makes you think this idea is correct? Since consciousness perceives in terms of thought it it not more rational to assume that objective phenomena must somehow have the same fundamental basis?


Parsimony dictates that the simplest explanation for a thing having those properties is that there is a thing having those properties. That is materialism.


It's also idealism and theistic phenomenology - that there are objective phenomena with properties "out there" that occupy spacetime doesn't change for anyone whatever theory they ascribe to of what it all ultimately is.

Are you somehow trying to deny that atheism must inherently include the belief that it is all uncreated by any type of consciousness or other (i.e. that it is all self or auto sustaining)?


This means either stuff has been around forever, which a human cannot comprehend, or the stuff somehow came from something other than existing stuff, which a human can also not comprehend. Since we can't comprehend either, it is pointless to even think about it.


It's practically the whole point of scientific thinking to generate hypothesis and construct theories. Do you just dislike this because it leads to theism being parsimonious?


I don't say "self-creating and self-sustaining" because those are nonsense ideas. Results without a cause. A human can't think like that. You are deluding yourself if you think you can.


I'm not an atheist who believes in these nonsense ideas...


You know, this whole post reads of typical atheist/materialist/skeptic behaviour of trying to desparately redefine things so that they simply don't have claims or beliefs and "nothing to defend".

One could construct God in exactly the same way following the exact same logic.


No, they don't show or even hint at consciousness being distinct from physiology.

To show that, one would have to find results that suggest the physical state of a mind can remain the same while the consciousness it produces changes. No such results exist.


NDEs refute this idea.


For myself, I think that John Searl has come very close to pointing out the faults in this reasoning with his Chinese Room thought experiment.No, he hasn't.

All he has pointed out is that if one accepts that consciousness is computational then one must accept that they could be a chinese room themselves.

He did not, in any way, show that consciousness is not computational.


Nobody is required to prove a negative. You have yet to show that consciousness is computational. Just using computational language for cognition and computation is not enough.


Why do you imagine your friends and family have any conscious subjective experience?

Because I fully believe that low levels of psi ability exist in humans and that at least some NDE's are true.

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Translation: You can't explain everything about materialism therefore my magic thinking is the true one.


Nope. Theism is the most parsimonious theory about existence solely because it deals with all the facts and is predicated upon something known.

Whether or not it's "true" is another question altogether.

~
HypnoPsi

[Dancing David]

This is only true when you observer reality through the filter of classical physics. From a quantum viewpoint things just doen't look the same at all.

~
HypnoPsi

That is just silly word play, you are reading foolish stuff into my statement that is not there.

The substance that appears to be there behaves as though it is quanta of energy that follow the behavior modeled as QM.

Try to remember I am not who you think I am, I am a nihilist. I see no meaning in any proposition, they are all meaningless in and of themselves.

Utility/validity in making predictions is all that there is that can be labeled as 'possibly coherent' explanations' of the 'observable behaviors'.

So your statement about my carefully worded statement about 'substance' makes all sorts of silly baggage you put on to it.

I feel that quanta of energy are a model that accurately seems to model the behavior of reality, as it appears.

I really don't care if it is 'god' or 'matter'. Anything beyond a cursory glance at physics will tell you that 'matter' is just a label property ascribed to certain aspects of 'energy'. There is no 'wave/particle duality'. Quanta appear as waves all the time and in every place, the 'waveform' does not collapse, it is a 'waveform' all the time, it intersects with other waves forms to produce the effects that we label as 'matter'. Again only from appearance.

But the models seems to suggest that 'it' is waveforms all the time, it is always 'energy'.

Whatever that is, again, I only am labeling the appearance, I think that if it is godthought, phenomena, butterfly dreams or quanta is meaningless.

It behaves as though it has 'subsatnce' although that 'substance' behaves as though it is 'quanta of energy'. It could be Magic Sky Pixie and the Fairy Horde. It doesn't have meaning, except as a way to label what appears to be.

[Dancing David]

Psi. Humans have got it and computers aint.

BTW, I'm not an idealist. I'm a theist and phenomenologist if that matters.

~
HypnoPsi

I think we should split this to another thread, do you agree?

[PixyMisa]

As I've said, I believe in the evidence for a low level of psi ability in humans and that some NDE accounts are genuine.
Why, though? After all, the quality of the research ranges from the appalling to the abysmal, and the entire field is utterly discredited.

The way atheists do it is little more than just white-washing the facts. The objective and subjective realms are different things.
Why do you think this?

What makes you think this idea is correct? Since consciousness perceives in terms of thought it it not more rational to assume that objective phenomena must somehow have the same fundamental basis?
Since I can turn your consciousness off by any of a variety of purely physical means, no; rather, it is very silly indeed.

Are you somehow trying to deny that atheism must inherently include the belief that it is all uncreated by any type of consciousness or other (i.e. that it is all self or auto sustaining)?
Of course we deny this. Atheism need include no beliefs whatsoever; it merely excludes positive belief in gods.

It's practically the whole point of scientific thinking to generate hypothesis and construct theories. Do you just dislike this because it leads to theism being parsimonious?
Nothing can possibly lead to theism being parsimonious.

NDEs refute this idea.
NDEs don't refute diddly, I'm afraid. There's not the slightest shred of evidence that NDEs are anything but physical processes.

Nobody is required to prove a negative. You have yet to show that consciousness is computational. Just using computational language for cognition and computation is not enough.
If you could bring up one, just one, aspect of consciousness that is not clearly informational in nature (and that actually exists) you would have a point.

Because I fully believe that low levels of psi ability exist in humans and that at least some NDE's are true.
Well, you're wrong then.

[plumjam]

Try to remember I am not who you think I am, I am a nihilist. I see no meaning in any proposition, they are all meaningless in and of themselves.


bolding mine
The second sentence is made up of two propositions, both of which propose propositions to be meaningless. It's an entirely self-defeating position to take.
Start again.

[HypnoPsi]

The sense of an internal self or perceiver gives individuals a frame of reference to process the information they receive. There are obvious advantages to believing there to be an "I" that needs feeding, protecting, and to interact with other "I"s.


You're still not seeing it are you? You are giving individuals as frame of references and having someone believe there to be an "I" that nees feeding, etc.,. None of this explains why there should be a subjective sense of an "I".

There is in fact an evolutionary explanation for consciousness. It won't kill you to look (http://www.pnas.org/content/89/16/7320.abstract) things (http://www.rpi.edu/~brings/EVOL/evol6/evol6.html) up (http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Brain-and-Cognitive-Sciences/9-00Fall-2004/LectureNotes/index.htm).


No, there are evolutionary theories for the development of cognition. You're only kidding yourself that it leads to qualitative experience. In short, you need to believe all of this first in order for it to be true.

You cannot experimentally demonstrate or justify the belief that consciousness is equivalent to or caused by information processing.

It was already shown that you're attributing abilities to the God-mind that no humans possess, and therefore your analogy fails.


And, again, the point of constructing a theory parsimoniously is not perfection - it is only to be parsimonious about it.


Yes, meanwhile physical causes can alter or destroy consciousness. You can hardly claim that consciousness is "uncuttable."


Nope. NDE's prove this completely wrong. Consciousness is completely distinct from physiology.

"Information," like the term "law," is a label we use for our understanding of what we observe. Your argument is no more coherent than the one creationists use in claiming that "laws" exist and laws require a lawgiver.


Can you give any examples of laws and information causing themselves to exist?

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Yes, I finally see what you mean. I agree. What now?


We should funnel billions into psi research and see where it leads us. From that point on we should build models and theories based upon the data we gain.Whether or not they confirm or disconfirm aspects of any given religion or philosophy is moot.

~
HypnoPsi

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You cannot experimentally demonstrate or justify the belief that consciousness is equivalent to or caused by information processing.
How do you justify the belief that consciousness exists at all?


Nope. NDE's prove this completely wrong. Consciousness is completely distinct from physiology.
Then I would think you could show me a disembodied consciousness. Whatever NDEs are, they clearly require a body.

~~ Paul

[HypnoPsi]

What is materialism/physicalism predicated on? What's its foundation?I gave you two reasons off the top of my head, which are demonstrable causality and repeatable observation.


I'm not saying that objective reality isn't a thing or is in anyway unreal. My definition of atheistic materialism/physicalism is that things are self-sustaining (as in being uncreated or sustained by any consciousness).

What justifies theorising that information - or even some stuff or other - can sustain itself?

I accept that ultimately we don't know and that all we have about either God or matter is theory. That's not the point of building a scientific theory. I'm only saying that theism is more parsimonious.


Chop consciousness just once and it disappears.


And I disagree based on NDE research.


If God-mind is a "theory" then what predictions does it make and how can we test it?


Now that is a sensible question. It can be tested (in principle if not in practice) on the grounds that God could - and indeed would - be falsified if you could show something existing that was truly self-sustaining and/or uncreated.

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Let's assume the very panultimate basis of reality is made up of magic powder or mind stuff, how does that change anything we know about it?


It doesn't and wouldn't. I have said so several times myself just as many others on the atheist side have themselves acknowledged.

My only point has been and remains that God is a more parsimonious solution to the question of existence that something being self-sustaining (regardless of whether or not it is pure information or some substance or other). God is predicated on consciousness. Matter is predicated on nothing at all. That's all there is to it.


Move it much further back. What sustains the sun? The solar system? The galaxy, cosmos etc. Or move it further into a molecule, atom, sub-particle etc.

Care to name one external magic mind process needed to sustain any of these regressions?


Nobody knows - and I don't believe that we can answer it. Do you? My point is that we can only work theoretically here. Consequently the only point worth debating is which view is the most parsimonious - and nobody has yet explained what the very idea of some self-sustaining stuff (or information) is predicated on.

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

My first reaction to this is that you can't possibly be serious that your god theory wins over physicalism. You must surely be joking.


Nope. The God theory is predicated on something known - consciousness. Physicalism (or materialism) in the atheist sense is simply not predicated on anything. It's all just words.

No, no, no, it is not. It is a complete disanalogy to personal human consciousness, which cannot create universes, cannot remember anything, cannot split itself into billions of individual minds, cannot maintain the regularity of the external world, is not everlasting, etc., etc.
~~ Paul


I'm not aware of anyone who is saying that it's a perfect analogy. What exactly is physicalism or materialism predicated on except the belief that what you are observing is physical or material.

It's pure circular reasoning and nothing more.

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Your theory: God maintains the universe.

Physicalism: The universe maintains itself (until further evidence suggests otherwise).

Now please perform the parsimony analysis so we can understand your point.

~~ Paul


Honestly... how many times. God is predicated on consciousness something that exists (important).

Information sustaining itself is predicated on nothing known to exist (unless you believe it first). Matter (as a truly uncuttable susbstance of some kind in spacetime) is predicated on thing known to exist either (unless you believe it first).

Nothing's being proven here. Theory does not prove God. The only point is that God is more parsimonious.

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

This is evidence for a self-sustaining universe.


Which is?

(And, please, not just your belief that it's self-sustaining.)

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Do you think plumjam and hypnopsi actually understand each other?


Yes.


I just can't nail down a coherent line of thought in any of them...


That says much more about you than it does about us.


But they really just knock science and others down, and never present a coherent picture or evidence of what they believe.


Please provide evidence that the Universe is self-sustaining.

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

So you don't think there are any theists who believe that god created the physical world and then left it alone to work by itself?


I'm perfectly aware of what deists, for example, believe. I think they may very well be 99.9% correct.


I don't even know why anyone would look for phenomenal experience in a robot in the first place.Perhaps, but how would we determine whether a robot has phenomenal experience?

The only people to ask for an anwer to this are those who indulge in such fantasies. I can't even begin to imagine how they would go about it.

In short, they have a lot of work to do first before they can even expect us to say "yes, such and such, existing would prove the robot has phenomenal experience".

So far there is nothing more than using the words robot and phenomenal experience in the same sentence as if it's supposed to mean something.

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

My only claim here is that God is the most parsimonious theory to explain existence when set against atheist theories like materialism or physicalism (however you choose to describe them). That's it. Nothing more.Then list all the properties of your God. In complete detail.


No idea and never claimed to have any idea about all properties of God. Again, I'm only saying it's more parsimonious than materialism.

You're the one who claims to have a complete understanding of how computers have subjective experience, right? Prove that and I'd say you pretty much prove that consciousness is generated by material interactions making the God theory redundant.

Let's see the evidence.

Except for the wee problem that we can observe that the Universe exists, and continues to exist,


Why would that mean it's self-sustaining?

and we can prove that computers are conscious.


I just love that emphasis on "prove" there! As if it's actually going to translate into reality or evidence somehow.

~
HypnoPsi

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm not aware of anyone who is saying that it's a perfect analogy.
In fact it's a really awful disanalogy. The only thing that analogizes is that you're imagining god to be like consciousness. But all the abilities you attribute to him don't follow.

What exactly is physicalism or materialism predicated on except the belief that what you are observing is physical or material.
All that matters is that I observe things that maintain consistency without my conscious effort. And those things appear to follow laws (an epistemological claim). What the stuff really is I do not know.


Honestly... how many times. God is predicated on consciousness something that exists (important).
It's a flimsy predication, but fine.


Information sustaining itself is predicated on nothing known to exist (unless you believe it first).
It's predicated on the fact that stuff continues to exist without any effort on the part of my phenomenal awareness.


Matter (as a truly uncuttable susbstance of some kind in spacetime) is predicated on thing known to exist either (unless you believe it first).
Agreed.


Nothing's being proven here. Theory does not prove God. The only point is that God is more parsimonious.
I don't see why.


Which is?

(And, please, not just your belief that it's self-sustaining.)
My belief that it is self-sustaining is no more or less complex than your belief that god sustains it. In fact, your god adds a mess of complexity that you cannot squirm out of by claiming god is an analogy to human consciousness, since the analogy is far from perfect. The disanalogous parts require extra complexity. Also, my belief that it is self-sustaining is justified, since it sustains itself. Neither my consciousness nor any perceivable god are doing the sustaining.


I'm perfectly aware of what deists, for example, believe. I think they may very well be 99.9% correct.
I think you're a deist, right? Theists believe in a personal god. Does god answer your prayers?


The only people to ask for an anwer to this are those who indulge in such fantasies. I can't even begin to imagine how they would go about it.
I don't want to ask them. I want to ask the robot. Or a zombie. Won't they answer precisely the same way you do?

~~ Paul

[HypnoPsi]

After 12 pages, I think we can distill theism and materialism into the following:

Theism: God, a conscious being, exists.
Materialism: My toaster, a conscious thing, exists.

And atheists think theists are loopy?


Exactly! Thank you Malerin.

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

You assume the existence of one more entity than do atheists. If a god-created universe is indistinguishable from a self-sustaining, self-perpetuating universe, to posit the existence of a god, particularly considering the fact that there is no evidence of one, is less parsimonious than an atheistic worldview.


Nope. Both theories that the Universe is God-thought and that it is a self-sustaining thing are positing one more entity.

Both theories are saying it's real. But the atheist claim that it's a self-sustaining thing is still going from properties to it being an independent thing.

It's just not as parsimonious as it's not predicated on anything known. God is predicated on consciousness.

Psi experiment aside, I'm sure others have pointed out that a god theory is no theory at all in that it's untestable and unfalsifiable.

Wrong. You find something that is truly self-sustaining (and not just believed to be self-sustaining) and uncreated and that would, by definition, end any theory of God.

Same in reverse. Proof of a God that has created everything thing would nullify anything you suspected was self-generating and self-sustaining.

Neither side can do this in practice but in principle the logic is sound.

That said, a god explanation of the universe involves an additional entity but yields no more information than a godless explanation.


I'll tentatively agree with this.


Consequently, a godless explanation is more parsimonious.


Nope. Parsimony is about taking all the facts and coming up with a theory that does not multiply unknowns. Consciousness is known so theists aren't predicating God on an unknown. The atheist Universe of information or substance that sustains and generates itself is not predicated on anything known.

~
HypnoPsi

[AkuManiMani]

Aside from that, I can no more prove God than you or any other atheist can prove that the Universe and everything in it is self-sustaining and self-perpetuating or that computers are conscious.

What makes you think that existence requires a 'sustainer', let alone a sentient personage to do the 'sustaining'? Your central point of contention seems to be:

"Reality requires a 'sustainer' and materialism fails to posit one. Therefore, it is incorrect."

There are a number a valid critiques that one can make of materialism but the one you've made central to you position is simply begging the question. Your alleged parsimonious solution to the 'sustainer' problem is just as unjustified as the claim that toasters and thermostats are somehow conscious.

[Dancing David]

bolding mine
The second sentence is made up of two propositions, both of which propose propositions to be meaningless. It's an entirely self-defeating position to take.
Start again.

So, let us see, I say that a priori, all propositions are meaningless.

Does that bother you, to say that atheism or theism is a better position a priori is foolish.

Despite the fact that many say it.

How do you know that thoughts or consciousness validate the notions that they exist?

And saying that semantic communication is meaningless prior to any evnt of reference is not a contradiction.

All thoughts and words are equally false and equally true. Some have greater predictive validity than others.

[Dancing David]

You're still not seeing it are you? You are giving individuals as frame of references and having someone believe there to be an "I" that nees feeding, etc.,. None of this explains why there should be a subjective sense of an "I".

There is no subjective experience on an "I" there is a body, there are sensations, thoughts, emotions and habits.

As the alleged historical buddha pointed out, that is all that there appears to be. The 'subjective sense of an I' is merely a conjecture that is placed over the five experients of being.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Nope. Parsimony is about taking all the facts and coming up with a theory that does not multiply unknowns. Consciousness is known so theists aren't predicating God on an unknown.
I don't usually say this sort of thing, but this is turning into a repetitious lie on your part. Most theists, including you, don't believe in a god that is nothing more or less than an analogy to consciousness. God is endowed with all sorts of extra attributes that we've all been listing for pages now. The mechanisms for all those attributes are unknowns.

~~ Paul

[PixyMisa]

Your alleged parsimonious solution to the 'sustainer' problem is just as unjustified as the claim that toasters and thermostats are somehow conscious.
Dead wrong.

Toasters and thermostats are unequivocally conscious according to a specific and useful definition of consciousness. Not a definition I fully agree with, but it's not invalid either.

HypnoPsi's invocation of God is undefined, unnecessary and unsupported.

[AkuManiMani]

If you could bring up one, just one, aspect of consciousness that is not clearly informational in nature (and that actually exists) you would have a point.

Earlier, I brought up examples of computation and cognition in the human brain that are not conscious. We know at this point that the brain is the medium for the phenomenon we call consciousness but there is not yet any understanding of what it is, exactly.

Its established the the mere computational processing of information isn't the same as being aware of that information. We experience sensory information and data as color, tastes, emotions, etc. but the information itself does not have such qualities. Colors are not a property of light, wavelengths are. The very phenomenon of experiencing these frequencies as color is a part of what we call consciousness. What is pain, really? We know it is associated with certain neurological responses but what is it about these responses that makes pain -- well -- painful?

Theres nothing in the currently known laws of physics that accounts for subjective experience. What is it really? We honestly don't know yet. All we do know is that its correlated with activity in the brain when we're lucid. Theres a big gaping hole in our understanding of the mind. While its not justified to fill in that gap with unsubstantiated 'magic' solutions its also not productive to pretend that it's not there.

Your computer = conscious is as unfounded as the 'Overmind' postulate.

[paximperium]

It doesn't and wouldn't. I have said so several times myself just as many others on the atheist side have themselves acknowledged.

My only point has been and remains that God is a more parsimonious solution to the question of existence that something being self-sustaining (regardless of whether or not it is pure information or some substance or other). God is predicated on consciousness. Matter is predicated on nothing at all. That's all there is to it.

Nobody knows - and I don't believe that we can answer it. Do you? My point is that we can only work theoretically here. Consequently the only point worth debating is which view is the most parsimonious - and nobody has yet explained what the very idea of some self-sustaining stuff (or information) is predicated on.

~
HypnoPsi
To summarize your long meandering post:
"Immaterialist state "We don't know but god is involved" is more parsimonious then the Materialist statement of "We don't know"."

Correct me if I find your hypocrisy and nonsense exceedingly funny.

[Silentknight]

Well, let's see.

We have evidence for toasters. For example, we can see them, touch them, burn our fingers on them, electrocute ourselves sticking knives in them. We spend money to buy them. We even, on occasion, use them to make toast.

Are they conscious? Sure, by Dennett's definition. I would say aware rather than conscious for the average toaster, but I'm sure there are toasters on the market that I would consider conscious (not just aware, but self-aware).

As for God... Nothing. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Not even a coherent definition.

Funny post, but science fiction writer Thomas M. Disch beat you to it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brave_Little_Toaster_(film)).

Though I forget whether the Radio had psi powers or not. I mean, he was certainly capable of receiving invisible signals from other machines over long distances. :D

[Malerin]

How do you justify the belief that consciousness exists at all?



Because denying your own consciousness is ludicrous? This seems to be the second prong of the materialstic attack on consciousness. First, we had toasters and thermostats are conscious. Now, we have nothing is conscious.

Yep, materialism is looking better and better :rolleyes:

[PixyMisa]

Earlier, I brought up examples of computation and cognition in the human brain that are not conscious.
Which isn't relevant.

We know at this point that the brain is the medium for the phenomenon we call consciousness but there is not yet any understanding of what it is, exactly.
Reflection. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(computer_science))

Its established the the mere computational processing of information isn't the same as being aware of that information.
Irrelevant.

We experience sensory information and data as color, tastes, emotions, etc. but the information itself does not have such qualities.
The qualities are information.

Colors are not a property of light, wavelengths are.
Irrelevant.

The very phenomenon of experiencing these frequencies as color is a part of what we call consciousness.
Why do you say that?

What is pain, really?
From what point of view? Physiological? Biochemical? Neurological? Cognitive?

We know it is associated with certain neurological responses but what is it about these responses that makes pain -- well -- painful?
Ah. Evolution. If pain was pleasurable we'd all be dead.

Theres nothing in the currently known laws of physics that accounts for subjective experience.
Baloney. There is nothing in subjective experience that raises the slightest problem for a purely physical explanation.

What is it really? We honestly don't know yet.
Yes. Yes we do. We don't know every detail of how the brain functions, but we know perfectly well that part of its function results in subjective experience.

All we do know is that its correlated with activity in the brain when we're lucid.
And also when we're not.

Theres a big gaping hole in our understanding of the mind.
Really? And what might that be?

While its not justified to fill in that gap with unsubstantiated 'magic' solutions its also not productive to pretend that it's not there.
Perhaps you could point it out to me, because I sure can't see it.

Your computer = conscious is as unfounded as the 'Overmind' postulate.
Have you read Dennett on this? Or Hofstadter? Do you know why Dennett regards a device as simple as a thermostat as conscious and not qualitatively different from a human brain or a human mind?

If not, then go read. Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach in particular.

If so, then why are you spouting rubbish?

[HypnoPsi]

Well, let's see.

We have evidence for toasters. For example, we can see them, touch them, burn our fingers on them, electrocute ourselves sticking knives in them. We spend money to buy them. We even, on occasion, use them to make toast.

Are they conscious? Sure, by Dennett's definition.


Toasters exist = toasters as conscious.

You couldn't make this up....


I would say aware rather than conscious for the average toaster, but I'm sure there are toasters on the market that I would consider conscious (not just aware, but self-aware).


More expensive toasters are actually self-aware?

Wow!

~
HypnoPsi

[PixyMisa]

Because denying your own consciousness is ludicrous? This seems to be the second prong of the materialstic attack on consciousness. First, we had toasters and thermostats are conscious. Now, we have nothing is conscious.

Yep, materialism is looking better and better :rolleyes:
How do you know you are not a p-zombie? Perhaps you only think you're conscious, when in reality, all your "thoughts" are just information being passed up from a subconscious level over which you have no control whatsoever.

[paximperium]

Because denying your own consciousness is ludicrous?
Why?

This seems to be the second prong of the materialstic attack on consciousness. Oooooh, a conspiracy against a useless fringe belief that the true believers don't even act upon or use except to justify their woo.

First, we had toasters and thermostats are conscious. Now, we have nothing is conscious.So you don't understand the argument about machines that are self-aware and conscious and all you have left it Argument from Incredulity(ie. Pure ignorance)?

Looks like Malerin no longer has any ability to refute any points anymore so he's now attempting his strawman and ridicule tactic to prevent his cognitive dissonance.


Yep, materialism is looking better and better :rolleyes:Yes it does because it works while your belief is completely and utterly useless drivel.

[PixyMisa]

Toasters exist = toasters as conscious.

You couldn't make this up....
And yet, you just did.

The two statements are separate. Both are true, but not equivalent.

More expensive toasters are actually self-aware?

Wow!
Sure. I'm not sure why anyone would put a even four-bit microcontroller into a toaster, but I'm quite sure someone has, and the programming would very likely qualify it as self-aware.

[HypnoPsi]

Keep flouting your ignorance. The rest of the world will continue to advance as you keep claiming that nothing else is real.


How on Earth is it an advancement for the world to think that toaster ovens (and now fridges) are conscious and self-aware?

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by Malerin
Unintentionally hilarious (which makes it even funnier). I have to nominate this.
I'm glad you're amused. Would you care to indicate why you find it amusing?


Because it's funny.

~
HypnoPsi

[paximperium]

Toasters exist = toasters as conscious.

You couldn't make this up....

More expensive toasters are actually self-aware?

Wow!

~
HypnoPsi
Toasters exist. Toasters are aware of its internal temperature and time.

Expensive toasters are able to determine the exact crispiness of the toast, the type of toast or if it is bagel, crossaint, the type of heat to use, the length of time to toast it. etc.

A toaster has sense data and is able to act upon it and even make judgements on it. Yes it is self-aware in a very limited sense but it has senses and abilities superior to yours.

[paximperium]

How on Earth is it an advancement for the world to think that toaster ovens (and now fridges) are conscious and self-aware?

~
HypnoPsi
To approach neurobiology as a field of science; mechanisticly and functionally view thereby gaining new knowledge on brain function and treatments for disease instead of relying on superstition, delusion and magic.

[PixyMisa]

Nope. Both theories that the Universe is God-thought and that it is a self-sustaining thing are positing one more entity.
You can't even count to two and you want to dispute ontologies?

Both theories are saying it's real. But the atheist claim that it's a self-sustaining thing is still going from properties to it being an independent thing.
No.

It's just not as parsimonious as it's not predicated on anything known.
Not only is this false, but it directly contradicts the previous sentence.

God is predicated on consciousness.
Consciousness in no way implies any sort of God, nor does God in any way explain consciousness. The invocation of God in your epistemology is unnecessary, unhelpful, undefined, and unsupported.

Wrong. You find something that is truly self-sustaining (and not just believed to be self-sustaining) and uncreated and that would, by definition, end any theory of God.
Depends on your definition of God, which you have not provided.

Of course, your terms "self-sustaining" and "uncreated" don't apply to materialism in any case.

Nope. Parsimony is about taking all the facts and coming up with a theory that does not multiply unknowns. Consciousness is known so theists aren't predicating God on an unknown.
God is not predicated on consciousness.

The atheist Universe of information or substance that sustains and generates itself is not predicated on anything known.
And yet, I can hit you on the head with it and remove your consciousness.

Seems I made that point before. Seems you ignore all logic and evidence that you disagree with. Seems that you don't make a whole lot of progress that way.

[paximperium]

Because it's funny.

~
HypnoPsi
Only to the most ignorant.

It's like a 12th century peasant laughing at the concept of tiny little life forms causing disease.

[PixyMisa]

Because it's funny.
And why do you think that?

[plumjam]

So, let us see, I say that a priori, all propositions are meaningless.

Does that bother you, to say that atheism or theism is a better position a priori is foolish.

Despite the fact that many say it.

How do you know that thoughts or consciousness validate the notions that they exist?

And saying that semantic communication is meaningless prior to any evnt of reference is not a contradiction.

All thoughts and words are equally false and equally true. Some have greater predictive validity than others.

This post of yours contains at least 5 propositions.
If you believe that all propositions are meaningless why have you bothered to make thirteen thousand posts, full of propositions, on an internet forum?
Your beliefs and your actions contradict each other.
And in terms of amusement value you are edging closer to Pixymisa and his self-aware toaster (only certain models, apparently).

[HypnoPsi]

Unless the computer is equipped with some kind of wireless communication device.

After all, that is your evidence for psi right? Purely non-physical communication?


So you think that wireless networking is non-physical?

Indeed, where is your evidence that psi is all down to EM fields to begin with?

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Happy New Year everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

[PixyMisa]

Indeed, where is your evidence that psi is all down to EM fields to begin with?
That would be hard to provide, there being no evidence for psi in the first place.

[HypnoPsi]

This raises at least three questions:

1. What is your evidence that humans have this "psi"?


I'm perfectly happy with things like the Ganzfeld studies and staring experiements showing a low level of psi ability in humans. I also accept that at least some NDE's are real.

You've heard of all of these already I'm quite sure.

2. What is your evidence that computers do not have this "psi"?


I have no need to prove a negative.

Show me a robot that can sense it's being stared at and then we'll definitely have something to talk about.


3. What reasoning can you provide that connects the supposed existence of this "psi" to the claim that matter is an illusion?


Again, to me, psi and NDE's demonstrate that consciousness is a distinct phenomena (from the brain). And I would reiterate that the Universe is no less real to me just because I am a theist and phenomenologist.

In otherwords the only illusion I see is the belief that objective phenomena are self-sustaining or auto-sustaining or whatever; as in uncreated.

~
HypnoPsi

[PixyMisa]

I'm not saying that objective reality isn't a thing or is in anyway unreal. My definition of atheistic materialism/physicalism is that things are self-sustaining (as in being uncreated or sustained by any consciousness).
Well, your definition bears little relation to the definition used by materialists. Where does "sustaining", let alone "self-sustaining" even come into it?

I accept that ultimately we don't know and that all we have about either God or matter is theory. That's not the point of building a scientific theory. I'm only saying that theism is more parsimonious.And I'm only pointing out that this claim is absurd.

And I disagree based on NDE research.What NDE research? Cite the specific papers that you think aren't just a miserable amalgam of wishful thinking and incompetence. Unlike all the ones that have ever been referenced on these forums.

Now that is a sensible question. It can be tested (in principle if not in practice) on the grounds that God could - and indeed would - be falsified if you could show something existing that was truly self-sustaining and/or uncreated.How would that be possible, even in principle? More to the point, what does it mean?

[HypnoPsi]

Saying "I made the decision at time X" is equivalent to "I had not made a decision at time X - t." Yet the data shows a decision could be predicted at time X - t.

This is a very simple result. A person didn't feel they had made a decision yet the outcome could be predicted.


No, you're looking at it exactly like a computer. You have no idea what was going on inside their heads.

All I can say here is that if I were a subject I'd probably be deciding at every instant whether or not to move my hand (and which one) from the moment I was given the instruction from the experimenter.

And you're still not explaining why the decision to move the hand didn't show up immediately after the instruction was given.

~
HypnoPsi

[Silentknight]

You're still not seeing it are you? You are giving individuals as frame of references and having someone believe there to be an "I" that nees feeding, etc.,. None of this explains why there should be a subjective sense of an "I".

No, there are evolutionary theories for the development of cognition. You're only kidding yourself that it leads to qualitative experience. In short, you need to believe all of this first in order for it to be true.
Wrong as usual. In order for something to qualify as an evolutionary explanation, all it has to do is have a demonstrable survival benefit under certain environmental conditions. To rephrase what I said before, consciousness in this sense is essentially a mental illusion or construct based on the centralization of sensory input from environmental stimuli. The reason you're seeing everything as circular is because it clashes with your own presuppositional belief that consciousness makes you special and that it's unique to humans, when in fact it's neither.

You cannot experimentally demonstrate or justify the belief that consciousness is equivalent to or caused by information processing.
One of the brain's main functions is to process information. Damage parts of the brain and the consciousness suffers, as we see in lesion studies, Alzheimer's patients, and those suffering various mental illnesses. Cause enough damage and the consciousness shuts off, often irrevocibly.

And, again, the point of constructing a theory parsimoniously is not perfection - it is only to be parsimonious about it.
When you keep repeating something that isn't true, it doesn't make it more true. The only way you've supported this assertion is through special pleading and the tu quoque fallacy. If both theories are wrong, your theory is still wrong. If both theories are wrong, but you claim that one is less wrong than the other, your theory is still wrong. I hope you realize that deriving a premise from a false conclusion gives you a false premise, therefore you're not in any position to conclude anything about the "exclusive materialist atheist" stance based on your false conclusion.

Nope. NDE's prove this completely wrong. Consciousness is completely distinct from physiology.
Well if you think your brain is just a hunk of meat that sits inside your skull and takes up space while pretending to be the center of consciousness, why don't you scoop it out and eat it? I'm sure it'd be delicious, albeit fairly high in cholesterol. Better yet, since that's likely to shut off your sense of taste and you won't be able to savor the juicy goodness, you can always wrap it up and give it to me.

Can you give any examples of laws and information causing themselves to exist?
Sure, ignore what I said about these being ways of categorizing our knowledge. I assume this translates into your asking me to prove that matter causes itself to exist, which is an absurd request because it's based on the assumptions of your theistic model that do not translate into any other models. You have yet to prove that consciousness is self-sustaining, and have refused to address the arguments involving physical causes that can affect the consciousness.

I'm not saying that objective reality isn't a thing or is in anyway unreal. My definition of atheistic materialism/physicalism is that things are self-sustaining (as in being uncreated or sustained by any consciousness).

What justifies theorising that information - or even some stuff or other - can sustain itself?
Which is a strawman, again based on your applying assumptions from the theistic model to other models. The problem with doing this? The theistic model was formed on the basis that God needed a role to fulfill. If you try to use the same framework on other models, it's going to look like a hole where God would normally sit. However you're only fooling yourself.

I accept that ultimately we don't know and that all we have about either God or matter is theory. That's not the point of building a scientific theory. I'm only saying that theism is more parsimonious.
Hey look, a causality loop! Oh wait, that's just your repeating yourself over and over again. My mistake.

And I disagree based on NDE research.
Let's see how well NDEs hold up as evidence. No two people will ever have the same NDEs. Not everyone will experience an NDE. People cannot observe each other's NDEs. It's demonstrable that the content of an NDE will vary based on a person's preexisting religious beliefs or lack thereof, for example, atheists and agnostics tend to see nothing during an NDE. Furthermore, the one thing NDE patients have in common is some form of brain damage; they're not called "near-death" for nothing. If you want to argue that accounts from brain damage patients are the most reliable sources of evidence to support a model of reality, be my guest.

Now that is a sensible question. It can be tested (in principle if not in practice) on the grounds that God could - and indeed would - be falsified if you could show something existing that was truly self-sustaining and/or uncreated.
That's not evidence for God, that's an argument from ignorance, asserting that because the opposite side of your black-and-white fallacy can't disprove God, we must assume he's real. Epic fail. I'm talking about standalone evidence for God.

[PixyMisa]

I'm perfectly happy with things like the Ganzfeld studies and staring experiements showing a low level of psi ability in humans. I also accept that at least some NDE's are real.

You've heard of all of these already I'm quite sure.
Yes. I also asked why you are "perfectly happy" with these experiments, when they are completely discredited.

I have no need to prove a negative.

Show me a robot that can sense it's being stared at and then we'll definitely have something to talk about.
The very best evidence from the Ganzfeld experiments is barely above statistical noise and fully explicable by the misapplication of analytical methods. (And we know the researchers have done that.)

I can do the same for a robot - or a toaster - given half an hour.

Again, to me, psi and NDE's demonstrate that consciousness is a distinct phenomena (from the brain).
Even if I allow, for the sake of argument, the existence of such things, how do you reach the conclusion that consciousness is a distinct phenomenon from the brain?

And I would reiterate that the Universe is no less real to me just because I am a theist and phenomenologist.
And I would reiterate that it seems odd that this phenomenon that is distinct from your brain can be so readily canceled out by blunt head trauma.

In otherwords the only illusion I see is the belief that objective phenomena are self-sustaining or auto-sustaining or whatever; as in uncreated.
When the rock meets your head, the rock persists; your consciousness is what fades away.

[paximperium]

Well, your definition bears little relation to the definition used by materialists. Where does "sustaining", let alone "self-sustaining" even come into it?

How would that be possible, even in principle? More to the point, what does it mean?
Basically I think "sustaining" means anything that can "sustain" itself without some extra "mind/magic" phenomena. Essentially it sounds like he believes that unless some "mind" sustains a rock,chicken, tree etc. it will dissipate.

Sounds like solipsisms to me but he takes it one step further by throwing in this "god-mind" sustains everything nonsense.

[paximperium]

And you're still not explaining why the decision to move the hand didn't show up immediately after the instruction was given.

Because the processing centers are different from the motor centers?

[paximperium]

I can do the same for a robot - or a toaster - given half an hour.
And a machine, properly programmed, could likely guess better than a human could.


When the rock meets your head, the rock persists; your consciousness is what fades away.
Ahhh, we just think it persists when in fact it doesn't.:D

[HypnoPsi]

My leanings would probably be more towards future research into such things as NDE's - and possibly even mediums, so long as good, stringent, controls were in place.I thought you were going to say something like "well if we suppose there was a God-mind, it raises questions we could use to tailor scientific research across the board and hopefully better understand the fundamentals of the universe and existence."


I think that both research into psi and research into physics combined will lead us much more to truth than research into physics alone.

It is reassuring to know that, were everyone to accept a God-mind hypothesis, you would advocate research in near death experiences and mediums above all else.


What would you expect me to say? That we should all just believe the Bible (or whatever book you can pick) as good enough and call it a day where research is concerned?

Why would I do that?


You have insisted, in at least 10 separate posts, that materialists claim "matter" is "self-sustaining" and "self-creating." Which means within the hard limit of what we can know.

You have been told, in at least as many posts, that materialists assert such concepts are nonsense/unknowable. Which means past the hard limit of what we can know.


Quotes? All I recall I've ever said is that atheism is the belief that the universe (and all therin) is self-sustaining (i.e. uncreated).

Which for an atheist is clearly that it is uncreated; i.e. self-sustaining, self-perpetuting or self-generating or whatever. Heck, call it auto-sustaining/perpetuating or generating if you like. It all amounts to the same thing, as I am quite sure you fully understandOOPS!!

Make that at least 11 posts!


Atheist - not materialist, though definitely atheistic materialist.

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

what is your evidence that humans have phenomenal experience?


In strict terms, we can all each of us - as far as I see it - only know that we ourselves are conscious. Psi and NDE's are only suggestive of other consciousnesses.

Though my personal belief here is that somehow we have some kind of inner knowing that we're all conscious through some low-level of psi - but that's just my opinion.

~
HypnoPsi

[PixyMisa]

I think that both research into psi and research into physics combined will lead us much more to truth than research into physics alone.
Again, why?

Physics research has lead to rapid and often astounding leaps in human understanding of the Universe, including the technology that drives this very forum.

Research into psi has... Lined the pockets of psi researchers.

Quotes? All I recall I've ever said is that atheism is the belief that the universe (and all therin) is self-sustaining (i.e. uncreated).
Which is sure as heck not how atheists define it.

[PixyMisa]

In strict terms, we can all each of us - as far as I see it - only know that we ourselves are conscious.
How do you know you are conscious?

Psi and NDE's are only suggestive of other consciousnesses.
Ah. Reversion to solipsism, then.

Though my personal belief here is that somehow we have some kind of inner knowing that we're all conscious through some low-level of psi - but that's just my opinion.
Have you ever tried, y'know, talking to people?

Just a thought.

[paximperium]

In strict terms, we can all each of us - as far as I see it - only know that we ourselves are conscious.
Are you sure about this? Perhaps you are complete imaginary zombie construct of Bob?

Psi and NDE's are only suggestive of other altered consciousnesses.

Fixed it for you.

[Silentknight]

I think that both research into psi and research into physics combined will lead us much more to truth than research into physics alone.
Oh absolutely. An understanding of psi has applications in hydraulics, barometric measurements, reservoir construction, SCUBA diving, automobile tire maintenance, and recreational bike riding. Unfortunately those damn materialists who see everything in terms of metric are threatening to take our psi away and replace it with Pascals!

Quotes? All I recall I've ever said is that atheism is the belief that the universe (and all therin) is self-sustaining (i.e. uncreated).
Nope, atheism is simply the rejection of belief in worshiped beings called gods. Marquis explains it all here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3747043#post3747043).

[Malerin]

And why do you think that?

Why is a conscious toaster funny? You have to ask? How about a happy calculator? A sad GPS navigator? An angry refrigerator? If you really want to know, stop someone on the street and tell them if they want a self-aware toaster, they'll have to be the extra-fancy model.

Seriously, you can't really believe this. That would be really sad.

[rocketdodger]

As I've said, I believe in the evidence for a low level of psi ability in humans and that some NDE accounts are genuine.

And all such evidence is behavioral. Try again.

Here is what wikipedia says about behavior. Do you disagree with this?

Behavior or behaviour (see spelling differences) refers to the actions or reactions of an object or organism, usually in relation to the environment.

Frankly, you are doing quite a bit of whining about "behavioral approaches" to cognition yet it seems like you don't even know what "behavioral" means.

I'm certain that I'm not inclined to redefine the "evidence of my own consciousness", as you call it, as behaviour and then, having leapt from subjective to objective uses of the term 'behaviour' carry on like I've not made the leap.

Can you give me even a single example of an aspect of your consciousness that is not behavioral? Just one?

Here is a clue -- an "action" is not just a physical action. It is anything an organism could be said to do. Any verb at all.

The way atheists do it is little more than just white-washing the facts. The objective and subjective realms are different things. Just using behaviouristic language drawn from information processing and cognitive psychology to describe both the subjective and objective realms does not lead to them both being the same thing.

Correct. What leads to them both being *almost* the same thing is the fact that nobody can provide a logically coherent reason for why they should be different other than identity. And identity is trivial.

It's nothing more than trying to get around the scientific rule that correlation is not causation by chasing your own tail.

No, it isn't. It is simply paying attention.

The only qualitative difference you can name between my consciousness and yours is the fact that I experience mine and you experience yours.

That very strongly suggests that "subjectivity" is merely the result of being an information processing entity. And all the evidence that keeps coming in from the fields of psychology and cognitive science reinforces this conclusion. Including your precious Ganzfeld and NDE results, which shed no light whatsoever on this magic source of subjectivity you contend exists.

What makes you think this idea is correct?

The laws of mathematics.

Since consciousness perceives in terms of thought it it not more rational to assume that objective phenomena must somehow have the same fundamental basis?

I don't understand this statement.

It's also idealism and theistic phenomenology - that there are objective phenomena with properties "out there" that occupy spacetime doesn't change for anyone whatever theory they ascribe to of what it all ultimately is.

Correct. But that is all materialism asserts -- that there are objective phenomena with properties. So what, again, is the point of idealism and theistic phenomenology?

Are you somehow trying to deny that atheism must inherently include the belief that it is all uncreated by any type of consciousness or other (i.e. that it is all self or auto sustaining)?

Yes. Atheism only denies a theistic God. You know, the omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal, outside of space and time, gray hair, hates fags and women, and kills firstborn children type?

It's practically the whole point of scientific thinking to generate hypothesis and construct theories. Do you just dislike this because it leads to theism being parsimonious?

You keep repeating these lofty words about "science" and "scientific method" and "theories" and "hypotheses." What, exactly, is your hypothesis that the evil atheist conspiracy is suppressing?

Note that a real scientific hypothesis logically leads to experiments that can be undertaken to test its validity. Does yours?

You know, this whole post reads of typical atheist/materialist/skeptic behaviour of trying to desparately redefine things so that they simply don't have claims or beliefs and "nothing to defend".

One could construct God in exactly the same way following the exact same logic.

Really? Do it.


NDEs refute this idea.

How? Can you provide anything resembling a logical argument?

You keep saying NDEs prove this and NDEs prove that. How do they prove it?


Nobody is required to prove a negative. You have yet to show that consciousness is computational. Just using computational language for cognition and computation is not enough.

Correct, except for the fact that there is zero evidence that consciousness is not computational.

If you disagree, feel free to give us an example. Just one example, HypnoPsi. Put your money where your mouth is.


Because I fully believe that low levels of psi ability exist in humans and that at least some NDE's are true.

Again... and again... and again... how does this show that consciousness is not computational?

[rocketdodger]

So you think that wireless networking is non-physical?

"Non-physical" as in "relies upon no mechanical communication," yes.

Indeed, where is your evidence that psi is all down to EM fields to begin with?

The facts that neurons are electrochemical and the only known way two electrochemical devices could interact with a wall between them is some kind of EM field.

So if Ganzfeld results are credible, I would put my money on some kind of unknown EM phenomena.

[rocketdodger]

No, you're looking at it exactly like a computer. You have no idea what was going on inside their heads.

All I can say here is that if I were a subject I'd probably be deciding at every instant whether or not to move my hand (and which one) from the moment I was given the instruction from the experimenter.

So would I. But I would not imagine that they could predict, with any success, what my decision would be. Because I do not feel like my decisions are determined, in any way, before I make them.

Which is wrong, as these experiments clearly demonstrate.

And you're still not explaining why the decision to move the hand didn't show up immediately after the instruction was given.

How is that relevant to the conclusion we are discussing?

Don't say "because we have no idea what was going on in their heads." That makes no difference whatsoever. We are only concerned with their perception of what was going on inside their heads -- which is easily accessed by simply questioning them.

[HypnoPsi]

I think that if it is godthought, phenomena, butterfly dreams or quanta is meaningless.


It depends where you take the theory. Consider, if people really believe that personhood is like a computer program and nothing more what's to stop their being more Peter Singers in the world?

Prematurely translating pure theory it into actual policy is to me where things could get very ugly.

Or how about giving robots rights?

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
Psi. Humans have got it and computers aint.

BTW, I'm not an idealist. I'm a theist and phenomenologist if that matters.
I think we should split this to another thread, do you agree?


Which part?

The problem for me is that now that the holidays are nearly over I simply won't be around that much on here after the weekend :(

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

How do you justify the belief that consciousness exists at all?


I don't consider my consciousness a belief and don't see why I should.

Then I would think you could show me a disembodied consciousness. Whatever NDEs are, they clearly require a body.


I disagree. NDE's are OOBE's.

~
HypnoPsi

[paximperium]

Why is a conscious toaster funny? You have to ask? How about a happy calculator? A sad GPS navigator? An angry refrigerator?
Nice strawman. Self awareness and consciousness are not predicate on emotions. A roach and even simpler organisms are self aware and "conscious".


If you really want to know, stop someone on the street and tell them if they want a self-aware toaster, they'll have to be the extra-fancy model.
Yawn, another Argument from Incredulity.

Seriously, you can't really believe this. That would be really sad.
Another appeal to emotion and Argument to consequence.

Malerin is now down to flailing aimlessly.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Because denying your own consciousness is ludicrous? This seems to be the second prong of the materialstic attack on consciousness. First, we had toasters and thermostats are conscious. Now, we have nothing is conscious.
I'm not saying there is no consciousness. I'm asking how you justify it, and how you determine whether something is conscious. In particular, since a philosophical zombie would answer all the questions with the same answers, how do you know you're not a zombie? Zippie the Zombie thinks it's just as ludicrous to deny that he is conscious.

~~ Paul

[paximperium]

I don't consider my consciousness a belief and don't see why I should.
Really? Are you sure all your thoughts, memories and very existence are yours and not Bob the Dreamer?


I disagree. NDE's are OOBE's.
Do you have any evidence that OOBE's are anything more than products of a dysfunctional brain since we can reproduce these OOBE with chemicals?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Show me a robot that can sense it's being stared at and then we'll definitely have something to talk about.
Oh my. Don't use Sheldrake's work to justify anything. Yagh. Bad. Eek.

~~ Paul

[rocketdodger]

What would you expect me to say? That we should all just believe the Bible (or whatever book you can pick) as good enough and call it a day where research is concerned?

Why would I do that?

You missed my sarcasm. My opinion is that your suggestion to funnel resources into NDE and medium research betrays your ulterior motives. As if the rest of your responses didn't already...

Quotes? All I recall I've ever said is that atheism is the belief that the universe (and all therin) is self-sustaining (i.e. uncreated).

There you go. You keep asserting that the only alternative to God-mind is "self-sustaining" or "uncreated." What, exactly, do those terms mean?

Because according to materialism, every result must have a cause. It doesn't make sense to a human to think otherwise. So I don't know wtf you are talking about with this "uncreated" nonsense.

[articulett]

I think if there was an iota of evidence to show that NDE's were more than wishful thinking, that funding from all over would come out of the woodwork. Who wouldn't want to understand and refine knowledge on such a thing if it signified something about consciousness after we die?... Who wouldn't jump upon the opportunity to really know about consciousness outside the brain if such a phenomena existed. We'd be developing the science faster than we have with DNA and brain research. But there is just nothing useful there. It seems a fascinating study of the way humans are so eager to fool themselves--especially regarding their own mortality.

[Malerin]

I think if there was an iota of evidence to show that NDE's were more than wishful thinking, that funding from all over would come out of the woodwork. Who wouldn't want to understand and refine knowledge on such a thing if it signified something about consciousness after we die?... Who wouldn't jump upon the opportunity to really know about consciousness outside the brain if such a phenomena existed. We'd be developing the science faster than we have with DNA and brain research. But there is just nothing useful there. It seems a fascinating study of the way humans are so eager to fool themselves--especially regarding their own mortality.

The largest (and longest study) ever done on NDE's rejected materialistic causes (hypercarbia, cerebral hypoxia, etc.) , and had this to say:

Finally, the theory and background of transcendence should be included as a part of an explanatory framework for these experiences.

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

[AkuManiMani]

Earlier, I brought up examples of computation and cognition in the human brain that are not conscious.

Which isn't relevant.

If you understand what I'm trying to get at you would see that it's extremely relevant.

We know at this point that the brain is the medium for the phenomenon we call consciousness but there is not yet any understanding of what it is, exactly.

Reflection. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(computer_science))

I recall you bringing up self-referencing programs earlier as an example of conscious awareness. I agree with you that it clearly has a critical role in intelligence but when I say 'consciousness' I am not referring merely to intelligence. Reflection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(computer_science)) is clearly not identical to awareness. Its essentially a class of internal feedback that take place not only in the brain but as a means of self-regulation in cells.

I think that we can agree that even tho our cells regulate their gene expression they are not conscious -- at least not what we experience as conscious. The crux of what I'm saying is that feedback response is not necessarily identical to awareness. The fact that such processes are continually at work in our bodies even when we are not lucid is proof of that. To assume that it is (even in the case of computational Reflection) would be a leap of faith.


The very phenomenon of experiencing these frequencies as color is a part of what we call consciousness.

Why do you say that?

Seems I'm having a hard time communicating what I'm actually getting at so I'll try to use an example you might find 'relevant'.

Lets say that you've constructed an automaton with its own onboard AI system whose main function is to vacuum floors without constant human supervision. Its equipped with adaptive reflective programing and has optic sensory systems, responds to sounds and vibrations, and for good measure, lets just say it even has some chemosense to detect spills and odors.

Now, assuming that it has all the computational functions that you identify with consciousness how do we know it experiences EM radiation the way we do? How about smells or sounds? Better yet, how would we know it experiences it chemosense as taste smell or something entirely different? A more important question would be: Even tho it can algorithmically respond to external and internal stimuli how would we know it subjectively experiences them as qualitative phenomenon at all?

I'll use another example to illustrate what I'm trying to convey.

Theres a condition in which a person's brain responds to visual information that comes thru the eyes. For all intents and purposes, the brain ''sees". The only problem is that people with this condition are not consciously aware of this sight -- they don't actually see. I believe the condition is called Blindsight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight). There are numerous examples one could point out of the brain unconsciously sensing and performing complex functions without full conscious awareness or without any conscious awareness at all.


Ah. Evolution. If pain was pleasurable we'd all be dead.

Its fully conceivable that evolution could have the brought about the pain response (i.e. avoiding or retreating from negative stimulus) without there necessarily being a conscious sensation of suffering.

Theres nothing in the currently known laws of physics that accounts for subjective experience.

Baloney. There is nothing in subjective experience that raises the slightest problem for a purely physical explanation.

My point is we don't have that explanation yet. Are color, taste, sadness, joy, etc. physical properties of matter? What force is the carrier of pain? Is subjective perception inherent in any physics equation? Why is there subjective experience at all and what physical principle makes it happen?

Why is it that a particular subset of chemical systems (i.e. organism) not only physically interact and respond to events but sometimes experience them as well?

What is it really? We honestly don't know yet.

Yes. Yes we do. We don't know every detail of how the brain functions, but we know perfectly well that part of its function results in subjective experience.

Pointing out that we have an idea of where it happens is not the same as demonstrating that we know what subjective experience is or how it happens.

While its not justified to fill in that gap [in our understanding] with unsubstantiated 'magic' solutions its also not productive to pretend that it's not there.

Perhaps you could point it out to me, because I sure can't see it.

PixyMisa, have you ever sleepwalked or known someone who has? The person walks around and can be responsive to external stimuli but without any conscious awareness of the experience or their actions. I've personally had to be told of things I've done while sleep walking after the fact because I had no conscious experience of it at all.

If autonomous behavior and response is not a guarantor of consciousness in a human being how is it at all founded to assume that it is in the case of an inanimate automaton? What would makes the smart-vac robot in my earlier example conscious while the sleepwalker is clearly not?

Better yet, what if one were to utilize AI technology similar to that of the hypothetical smart-vac in a much different way. Say we had a person in a coma and we had the technology to have a direct computer interface between the brain/nervous system to the point where we could have an AI system control the motor function of their body. Lets say that this system could also utilize sensory information coming into the brain. With this in place, hypothetically, it would be possible to have a comatose person behave in an autonomous manner and even program them to perform relatively complex tasks.

By your definition, would they be conscious? Hows about the AI put in place to control their behavior and motor functions? Would you consider the AI to be their consciousness? Why or why not?


Your computer = conscious is as unfounded as the 'Overmind' postulate.

Have you read Dennett on this? Or Hofstadter? Do you know why Dennett regards a device as simple as a thermostat as conscious and not qualitatively different from a human brain or a human mind?

If not, then go read. Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach in particular.

If so, then why are you spouting rubbish?

I'm familiar with Dennett's definition of consciousness and why he states that a thermostat is not qualitatively different than the human brain/mind. Essentially his argument is that the difference between the two examples is a matter of degree rather than kind and that the only thing that truly distinguishes human 'consciousness' from thermostat 'consciousness' is that the process in question is more complex in humans.

I fully understand this position but, for reasons I've already mentioned, I find it extremely lacking.

[PixyMisa]

The largest (and longest study) ever done on NDE's rejected materialistic causes (hypercarbia, cerebral hypoxia, etc.) , and had this to say:

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm
That's it? That's the best you've got?

An entirely subjective survey of CPR patients, and a second-hand anecdote?

[PixyMisa]

I recall you bringing up self-referencing programs earlier as an example of conscious awareness. I agree with you that it clearly has a critical role in intelligence but when I say 'consciousness' I am not referring merely to intelligence.
Neither am I.

Reflection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_%28computer_science%29) is clearly not identical to awareness.No, it's self-awareness.

I think that we can agree that even tho our cells regulate their gene expression they are not conscious -- at least not what we experience as conscious.Irrelevant.

The crux of what I'm saying is that feedback response is not necessarily identical to awareness.I never said it was.

The fact that such processes are continually at work in our bodies even when we are not lucid is proof of that.Doubly irrelevant.

To assume that it is (even in the case of computational Reflection) would be a leap of faith.Irrelevant non-sequitur.

Seems I'm having a hard time communicating what I'm actually getting at so I'll try to use an example you might find 'relevant'.Okay, shoot.

Lets say that you've constructed an automaton with its own onboard AI system whose main function is to vacuum floors without constant human supervision.Okay.

Its equipped with adaptive reflective programing and has optic sensory systems, responds to sounds and vibrations, and for good measure, lets just say it even has some chemosense to detect spills and odors.Fine. It's conscious.

Now, assuming that it has all the computational functions that you identify with consciousness how do we know it experiences EM radiation the way we do?Irrelevant.

How about smells or sounds?Irrelevant.

Better yet, how would we know it experiences it chemosense as taste smell or something entirely different?Irrelevant.

Sensory input is necssary for conscious awareness. Human-identical sensory input isn't even universal among humans. Or do you not consider Helen Keller conscious? Synaesthetes?

A more important question would be: Even tho it can algorithmically respond to external and internal stimuli how would we know it subjectively experiences them as qualitative phenomenon at all?Simple: Because that's what it means to subjectively epereince things as qualitative phenomena.

I'll use another example to illustrate what I'm trying to convey.Okay.

Theres a condition in which a person's brain responds to visual information that comes thru the eyes. For all intents and purposes, the brain ''sees".Yep.

The only problem is that people with this condition are not consciously aware of this sight -- they don't actually see. I believe the condition is called Blindsight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight). Yes.

There are numerous examples one could point out of the brain unconsciously sensing and performing complex functions without full conscious awareness or without any conscious awareness at all.Sure.

So what?

Its fully conceivable that evolution could have the brought about the pain response (i.e. avoiding or retreating from negative stimulus) without there necessarily being a conscious sensation of suffering.It did.

My point is we don't have that explanation yet. Are color, taste, sadness, joy, etc. physical properties of matter?They are material processes.

What force is the carrier of pain?What definition of pain?

Is subjective perception inherent in any physics equation?The equations describing a self-referential system with sensory input, yes.

Why is there subjective experience at all and what physical principle makes it happen?Self-reference.

That's all. There's nothing special about subjective experience. There's no magic. In humans, it's complex. In toasters, it's simple. In both, it's the same thing.

Why is it that a particular subset of chemical systems (i.e. organism) not only physically interact and respond to events but sometimes experience them as well?Self-reference.

Pointing out that we have an idea of where it happens is not the same as demonstrating that we know what subjective experience is or how it happens.It explains everything about experience, based on what we already know about the brain. Where's the problem?

PixyMisa, have you ever sleepwalked or known someone who has? The person walks around and can be responsive to external stimuli but without any conscious awareness of the experience or their actions.So?

I've personally had to be told of things I've done while sleep walking after the fact because I had no conscious experience of it at all.So?

If autonomous behavior and response is not a guarantor of consciousness in a human being how is it at all founded to assume that it is in the case of an inanimate automaton?It isn't.

The difference is, automata, unlike humans, can be taken apart and put back together, and we can point out the consciousness circuits, and stick a logic probe in there and watch it happen.

What would makes the smart-vac robot in my earlier example conscious while the sleepwalker is clearly not?Is the sleepwalker so clearly not?

You're confusing consciousness as a fundamental process with consciousness as it is experience specifically by alert, healthy, psychosis-free, adult humans. That is just one specific example of consciousness, and you are attaching all sorts of baggage that simple doesn't apply to the general case.

What did Descartes tell us? I think, therefore I am. Consciousness is self-reference, all else is just factory-installed extras.

Better yet, what if one were to utilize AI technology similar to that of the hypothetical smart-vac in a much different way. Say we had a person in a coma and we had the technology to have a direct computer interface between the brain/nervous system to the point where we could have an AI system control the motor function of their body. Lets say that this system could also utilize sensory information coming into the brain. With this in place, hypothetically, it would be possible to have a comatose person behave in an autonomous manner and even program them to perform relatively complex tasks.And?

By your definition, would they be conscious?Who is the "they" here? You have stipulated that the human brain is not conscious. If the AI is conscious, and you consider the AI now part of the person, then the person is conscious, even though their meat brain is fried.

Hows about the AI put in place to control their behavior and motor functions? Would you consider the AI to be their consciousness? Why or why not?Is it self-referential? If yes, then yes. If no, then no.

I'm familiar with Dennett's definition of consciousness and why he states that a thermostat is not qualitatively different than the human brain/mind. Essentially his argument is that the difference between the two examples is a matter of degree rather than kind and that the only thing that truly distinguishes human 'consciousness' from thermostat 'consciousness' is that the process in question is more complex in humans.Yes, that's precisely correct.

I fully understand this position but, for reasons I've already mentioned, I find it extremely lacking.You're not talking about consciousness. You're essentially ignoring consciousness and talking about all sorts of other things that simply do not matter.

[Z]

HypnoPsi will never, ever, ever relinquish his belief in NDEs and OOBEs, regardless of what anyone shows him. It's his one unshakable point of faith, upon which he builds his entire worldview. Never mind that each and every experiment into these events either disproves their existence or was done so poorly as to be laughable; never mind that any properly done experiment demonstrates these events to be the direct result of a traumatized or chemically imbalanced brain. HP must and will believe that they prove consciousness is an independent entity from the brain.

Hence, discussion with him on the point is... pointless.

Luckily, cooler heads prevail worldwide, and we won't be wasting 'billions of dollars' on pointless, useless psi research.

[AkuManiMani]

I think that we can agree that even tho our cells regulate their gene expression they are not conscious -- at least not what we experience as conscious.

Irrelevant.



Irrelevant? Its absolutely central. If the processes involved in all biological functions are essentially the same as what you describe as consciousness [self-referential computation] and we, as living organisms, do not experience consciousness for as long as we are live there is a clear contradiction in the definition you've provided.

The definition you've provided is not useful because its too broad. Essentially, what you're saying is that a bacteria or plant is conscious. Even a comatose person would be 'conscious' by the definition you've provided. Yes, there is self-reference going on in conscious states but not all systems of self-reference are conscious. I'm not even just speaking of being 'self aware' simply being aware period is what is not clearly understood.


Lets say that you've constructed an automaton with its own onboard AI system whose main function is to vacuum floors without constant human supervision. Its equipped with adaptive reflective programing and has optic sensory systems, responds to sounds and vibrations, and for good measure, lets just say it even has some chemosense to detect spills and odors.

Fine. It's conscious.


Now, assuming that it has all the computational functions that you identify with consciousness how do we know it experiences EM radiation the way we do?

How about smells or sounds?

Better yet, how would we know it experiences it chemosense as taste smell or something entirely different?


Irrelevant.



Huh?

Judging from the context and usage it seems you're using the world 'irrelevant' in lieu of 'I don't know' or 'does not compute'.

You keep claiming that we sufficiently understand conscious yet you can't even explain to me how constructs based off of that alleged understanding would reproduce human sensory experience.

If consciousness is understood so rigorously explain to me how we would go about creating an entity that experiences 'redness'? Hows about 'bitterness'? Take your time and think about it -- don't just reflexively brush off the question because it confuzzles you. Humor me.


Better yet, how would we know it experiences it chemosense as taste smell or something entirely different?

Sensory input is necssary for conscious awareness. Human-identical sensory input isn't even universal among humans. Or do you not consider Helen Keller conscious? Synaesthetes?

Hellen Keller was indeed conscious, and so are synaesthetes but you're missing the point entirely. The questions of: What distinguishes one qualitative experience from another and what does it mean to be conscious of sensory input? A synaesthete experiences sensory input but that experience is qualitatively different from other people. Saying sensory input is essential for conscious awareness does not tell us WHAT consciousness IS.

Keller would still be conscious if her other senses later failed and she had no sensory feedback from her environment at all. She probably would have suffered a lot of psychological anguish to have been so profoundly cut off from the world and she would be left with nothing but her own thoughts emotions and, probably troubled, dreams.


A more important question would be: Even tho it can algorithmically respond to external and internal stimuli how would we know it subjectively experiences them as qualitative phenomenon at all?

Simple: Because that's what it means to subjectively experience things as qualitative phenomena.

Except for those 'irrelevant' exceptions that I brought up in which it doesn't. Or the incongruous fact that even if you make an automaton from scratch you don't even know what the world 'looks like' to it lets alone whether or not it experiences qualitative states.


You're confusing consciousness as a fundamental process with consciousness as it is experience specifically by alert, healthy, psychosis-free, adult humans. That is just one specific example of consciousness, and you are attaching all sorts of baggage that simple doesn't apply to the general case.

What did Descartes tell us? I think, therefore I am. Consciousness is self-reference, all else is just factory-installed extras.

Consciousness is awareness. Self-reference is not awareness.

Me invoking specific sensory examples is just to illustrate what we don't know. The "factory-installed extras" aren't merely add-ons but different manifestations of the same phenomenon in question, namely consciousness. The fact that we cannot account for them or meaningfully attempt to reproduce them [still waiting on your explanation of how to produce a bot that experiences "redness"] clearly highlights the limits of our understanding of the subject of consciousness.

When we're able to produce an entity from scratch that can experience qualia to our specifications and we can know what its experiencing, then we can take meaningfully of understanding consciousness. Until then we're just making guesses.

You're not talking about consciousness. You're essentially ignoring consciousness and talking about all sorts of other things that simply do not matter.

Ironically enough, the reverse is true. I'm the one discussing qualitative experiences that are central to the topic of consciousness and you're invoking thermostats and toaster ovens. With a definition of consciousness as broad as the one you're using you might as well just call yourself an idealist and be done with it.

The examples I've listed illustrate that self-reference is not synonymous with consciousness yet you pull a "system error: does not compute" on me and completely miss the fact that your definition of consciousness is inadequate. Its like trying to discuss politics with a web bot. You can't seem step back from the system of thinking you've taken for granted to look at its flaws and limitations.

[Undesired Walrus]

Just to play Devil's advocate here, when we drift off to sleep, our perception of reality becomes radically distorted from our day to day perception of reality. If our brain allows itself to distort the world around us in this manner, for what justification do we have to have to assume to sober world is a more accurate depiction?

One answer may be that all alert, sober Humans can describe the appearance and texture of objects and events in a similar and familiar manner to each other, whilst a drowsy, stoned Human cannot. That said, for what reason do we assume this is satisfying? What is more real about the sober world than the stoned one?

[lupus_in_fabula]

For anyone interested... Ramachandran has a new essay that seems to fit this discussion: Self Awareness: The Last Frontier (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/rama08/rama08_index.html) (1.1.09, Edge.org).

[paximperium]

For anyone interested... Ramachandran has a new essay that seems to fit this discussion: Self Awareness: The Last Frontier (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/rama08/rama08_index.html) (1.1.09, Edge.org).
Great article. Goes to show how much we know(and don't know) about the brain and its function when not hampered by woo-mongerers and magic thinking.

[Dancing David]

Because denying your own consciousness is ludicrous? This seems to be the second prong of the materialstic attack on consciousness. First, we had toasters and thermostats are conscious. Now, we have nothing is conscious.

Yep, materialism is looking better and better :rolleyes:

So, you sate that there is no evidence for the 'material' but then turn around and state that the same evidence is evidence for 'consciousness'.
I had expected better of you, I know you do stop and think so i am very suprized by your pat dismissal.

Why does the exact same evidence lead you to say one is illusion and the other real ?

Is it not truly more rational to apply the same standard to both?
:)

[Dancing David]

This post of yours contains at least 5 propositions.
If you believe that all propositions are meaningless why have you bothered to make thirteen thousand posts, full of propositions, on an internet forum?
Your beliefs and your actions contradict each other.
And in terms of amusement value you are edging closer to Pixymisa and his self-aware toaster (only certain models, apparently).
I believe that there was a qualifier to the statement about propositions.

So as usual you ignore the use of the term 'a priori', that sort of figures. Since you can't come up with a coherent response to my comment, you just try to laugh it off.

Strange, I had thought better of you too. Turns out that you don't want to talk about it or look at it.

As with BAC I will take that as an admission that you don't have a counter to the statement that:

'a priori all propositions are meaningless'.

Figures, you are unable to maintain focus because you don't have a counter argument.

This is the post
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4311380&postcount=592

This is the quote which I will highlight as you perhaps are not wearing your glasses:
So, let us see, I say that a priori, all propositions are meaningless.

I know you can offer better arguments than shifting the words I used around. Unless you will now mount your mighty steed and gallop away....

[Dancing David]

It depends where you take the theory. Consider, if people really believe that personhood is like a computer program and nothing more what's to stop their being more Peter Singers in the world?

Prematurely translating pure theory it into actual policy is to me where things could get very ugly.

Or how about giving robots rights?

~
HypnoPsi

I hope you understand this, I can not prove that I am not a robot.

I assume that i am not a robot.

You have misplaced your argument, belief in a spirit , soul and all that led to as much destruction as no belief in a soul.

You seem to have avoided answering my statement.

How can you tell the difference between quanta and godthink or butterfly dreams?

I am amazed by all the shifting that is going on here, you are doing better than the others.

[Dancing David]

Which part?

The problem for me is that now that the holidays are nearly over I simply won't be around that much on here after the weekend :(

~
HypnoPsi

I appreciate that, I would find it interesting as the evidence for the Ganzfeld is very, very , very weak.

[Dancing David]

Aku Mani Mani
As someone who has had severe sleep disturbances and even some memories of my recent sedation. (Very dreamlike)

There is already the notion that exists that there are levels of consciousness, in many states one actually is 'aware' and actually meets the criteria for 'self aware', they do not however for concrete memories of the events.

That is a BIG problem when people use the word consciousness, they don't define it and just assume that it has meaning.

When I had my colonoscopy they gave me some major benzodiazepine and a narcotic. the point is that they want you 'rousable' meaning that you are capable of looking as though you are 'awake' and 'responsive' as in they can ask you questions and ask you to preform tasks.

So this si where I think the use of therm consciousness gets into trouble.

Take a person with Alzheimers or dementia, they are 'aware', they are 'self aware', yet they do not often form new memories.

So then you still end up with the laundry list defintion of consciousness or old chinese menu list.

Must have 5 out of seven criteria or one from column A and two from column B.

Either way it points out why I feel it is better to avoid the use of the term 'consciousness' and try to define which processes you are talking about.

[PixyMisa]

Another instance: I sometimes experience lucid dreams - that is, I am aware that I am dreaming, and have some control over the course of the dream. I can even voluntarily wake myself from this state. And yet, I'm in REM sleep.

Consicousness is self awareness. The rest is interesting, but it's not consciousness.

[plumjam]

I believe that there was a qualifier to the statement about propositions.

So as usual you ignore the use of the term 'a priori', that sort of figures. Since you can't come up with a coherent response to my comment, you just try to laugh it off.

Strange, I had thought better of you too. Turns out that you don't want to talk about it or look at it.

As with BAC I will take that as an admission that you don't have a counter to the statement that:

'a priori all propositions are meaningless'.

Figures, you are unable to maintain focus because you don't have a counter argument.

This is the post
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4311380&postcount=592

This is the quote which I will highlight as you perhaps are not wearing your glasses:
So, let us see, I say that a priori, all propositions are meaningless.

I know you can offer better arguments than shifting the words I used around. Unless you will now mount your mighty steed and gallop away....

Can you offer a convincing explanation as to how adding 'a priori' to the start of a proposition makes that proposition not a proposition?
Even if you could show that adding qualifiers to propositions can magic them into being non-propositions then you are in the following position.

a) you are not making a proposition, so you're literally saying nothing in regard to the relationship, if any, between meaninglessness and propositions

If, however, you cannot manage it you are back where I initially said you were
b) in the self-defeating position of making a proposition which states that all propositions are meaningless.

If it is a, then the most rational thing you can do is to shut up. If it is b then the most reasonable thing you can do is acknowledge the self-defeating nature of that position, appropriately modify your belief on the matter, and move on.

[plumjam]

How do you know you are conscious?


More hilarity from the Pixy.
To see how absurd you're being, simply imagine a situation in which you know you are currently not conscious.
To know that you are currently not conscious you would have to be what?
(I'll help you out) _ o _ s _ _ _ _ s
Rhymes with the first name of that guy who helped decide Jesus' fate and didn't fly planes yet.

[paximperium]

More hilarity from the Pixy.
To see how absurd you're being, simply imagine a situation in which you know you are currently not conscious.
To know that you are currently not conscious you would have to be what?
(I'll help you out) _ o _ s _ _ _ _ s
Rhymes with the first name of that guy who helped decide Jesus' fate and didn't fly planes yet.
Hey, another inane Plumjam dodge. Why am I not surprised?
The standard tactic of throw bullcrap around and hopefully no one will notice that he didn't answer the question at all.

So you don't have an answer to "How do you know you're conscious"?

[PixyMisa]

More hilarity from the Pixy.
To see how absurd you're being, simply imagine a situation in which you know you are currently not conscious.
Well, there's two answers to that.

One is the lucid dreaming situation I mention above; however, I would argue that I am conscious in that case - asleep, yes, but conscious.

The other answer is: How do you know you are conscious?

To know that you are currently not conscious you would have to be what?

(I'll help you out) _ o _ s _ _ _ _ s
How do you know?

Is the fact that you can formulate the question sufficient to provide the answer, as Descartes wrote?

I say that it is. Alongside Descartes and Hofstadter and Dennett, to name but a few.

And that means that toasters are conscious, and your and Malerin's and HypnoPsi's and AkuManiMani's objections are rendered non sequiturs by your own argument.

[Dancing David]

Can you offer a convincing explanation as to how adding 'a priori' to the start of a proposition makes that proposition not a proposition?
Even if you could show that adding qualifiers to propositions can magic them into being non-propositions then you are in the following position.

Wow , overgenralize much? Keep pretending that you are answering my point. It must threaten you or you would actually respond to it.

Please explain to me why you think I said that all propositions are meaningless?

Because you can't counter what i actually said?

Figures, you will act funny and rude in proportion to your inability to answer the question.


a) you are not making a proposition, so you're literally saying nothing in regard to the relationship, if any, between meaninglessness and propositions

Um, yeah , right PJ, just try to shift the goal post. Okay by me if youw ant to pretend to ignore what i actually said.


If, however, you cannot manage it you are back where I initially said you were
b) in the self-defeating position of making a proposition which states that all propositions are meaningless.

Huh, I didn't say that, now did I?


If it is a, then the most rational thing you can do is to shut up. If it is b then the most reasonable thing you can do is acknowledge the self-defeating nature of that position, appropriately modify your belief on the matter, and move on.

Wow Plumjam, you willingness to ignore what i am saying is amazing.

How does saying that a priori assesments and judgments are meaningless in the context of making predictions have anything to do with what you said?

My statement is saying that without referents to something, either experience or what have you, that all propositions are meaningless.

But you will continue to ignore my point, because you have no answer.

So continue to make it like I said ALL propositions are meaningless, which is not what I said.

What do you think language and communication is? Does it exist without phenomena or 'material' to reference. (Assuming that separate beings exist).

So try to address that if you will.

Otherwise your mighty steed is warmed up and waiting for your gallop.

[plumjam]

My statement is saying that without referents to something, either experience or what have you, that all propositions are meaningless.

Ok, at least this has the form, if not the content, of an explanation.
Now please provide an example of a proposition which is 'without referents to something, either experience or what have you'.

[plumjam]

Well, there's two answers to that.

One is the lucid dreaming situation I mention above; however, I would argue that I am conscious in that case - asleep, yes, but conscious.

The other answer is: How do you know you are conscious?


How do you know?

Is the fact that you can formulate the question sufficient to provide the answer, as Descartes wrote?

I say that it is. Alongside Descartes and Hofstadter and Dennett, to name but a few.

And that means that toasters are conscious, and your and Malerin's and HypnoPsi's and AkuManiMani's objections are rendered non sequiturs by your own argument.

I'm not following your jump (a kind of 'jump' which would greatly facilitate intergalactic travel) from a conscious being (yourself) recognising the self-evident absurdity of doubting whether one is conscious, to your....

And that means that toasters are conscious

[Ichneumonwasp]

Can you offer a convincing explanation as to how adding 'a priori' to the start of a proposition makes that proposition not a proposition?
Even if you could show that adding qualifiers to propositions can magic them into being non-propositions then you are in the following position.

a) you are not making a proposition, so you're literally saying nothing in regard to the relationship, if any, between meaninglessness and propositions

If, however, you cannot manage it you are back where I initially said you were
b) in the self-defeating position of making a proposition which states that all propositions are meaningless.

If it is a, then the most rational thing you can do is to shut up. If it is b then the most reasonable thing you can do is acknowledge the self-defeating nature of that position, appropriately modify your belief on the matter, and move on.


Curious that you find contradiction in David's position but not your own. He stated that propositions need context for meaning, that they are meaningful only in relation to other propositions (though, yes, he stated it in a negative way), but what about the proposition that all propositions need context? Yes, it requires context as well.

Essentially what he said was "we don't know reality" in itself, without a context. And you seem to disagree. Yet, you have also stated that we do know reality "in itself" by means of mystical experiences. But knowing that the experience *is* reality is a proposition, which requires context, so it cannot be known "in itself".

David did not say that all propositions are meaningless without qualification. He said that they are meaningless "in and of themselves", in other words, without context, without relation to other propositions. The proposition that propositions are meaningless in and of themselves does not negate his earlier statement, but demonstrates it because that proposition -- to be meaningful -- requires some type of context for us to understand it.

This is very similar to your rejoinder to someone else who said, and I am paraphrasing, "experience alone is not sufficient" and to which you replied, and I am again paraphrasing, "you could only decide that by means of experience."

You don't seem to pay attention to what people actually say but try to gainsay based on some different version of what they say. The earlier poster did not say that experience is useless for knowledge but that experience alone is not sufficient for knowledge. You somehow seemed to turn that into a proposition that the poster holds that experience is useless, which is the only way I can fathom that your reply makes any sense. Same with David. You've turned his statement about our inability to make sense out of propositions without context into a statement that we are unable to understand propositions at all.

Do you understand why people accuse you of building straw houses?

On a larger note, is anyone interested in getting to the bottom of all this nonsense by actually examining the definitions of the words we use, or should we continue spinning wheels for another ten pages while one group throws mud at the other and both use different definitions and equivocate in an endless parade of semantic masturbation?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Ok, at least this has the form, if not the content, of an explanation.
Now please provide an example of a proposition which is 'without referents to something, either experience or what have you'.


I think his whole point is that he can't. It would have no meaning. We can't speak in terms of propositions that have no other referent, and that is why we can't speak of ultimate reality or know ultimate reality.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

More hilarity from the Pixy.
To see how absurd you're being, simply imagine a situation in which you know you are currently not conscious.
To know that you are currently not conscious you would have to be what?
(I'll help you out) _ o _ s _ _ _ _ s
Rhymes with the first name of that guy who helped decide Jesus' fate and didn't fly planes yet.
So you're saying that it is impossible to program a computer to think that it is conscious and respond exactly like you do?

It's really not as simple as you appear to think.

~~ Paul

[nescafe]

On a larger note, is anyone interested in getting to the bottom of all this nonsense by actually examining the definitions of the words we use, or should we continue spinning wheels for another ten pages while one group throws mud at the other and both use different definitions and equivocate in an endless parade of semantic masturbation?
Even after examining the definitions of the words we use this thread will end up being semantic masturbation, unless a miracle happens and everyone who has been participating actually manage to agree on a mutually compatible set of definitions. Then the thread will just be the various factions flinging semantically coherent poo at each other, instead of the semantically incoherent poo they are flinging right now.

Aren't primate conflicts fun? ;)

[PixyMisa]

On a larger note, is anyone interested in getting to the bottom of all this nonsense by actually examining the definitions of the words we use, or should we continue spinning wheels for another ten pages while one group throws mud at the other and both use different definitions and equivocate in an endless parade of semantic masturbation?
Little point in that, I'm afraid.

One side has observed that all self-consistent ontologies that accurately reflect reality are of necessity functionally equivalent.

The other claims that Rupert Sheldrake proves the existence of God.

One side is right; the other side is not even wrong.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Little point in that, I'm afraid.

One side has observed that all self-consistent ontologies that accurately reflect reality are of necessity functionally equivalent.

The other claims that Rupert Sheldrake proves the existence of God.

One side is right; the other side is not even wrong.


But, but, if we all agreed on a clear and workable definition of the morphogenetic field.....................


Ah, nuts.

[HypnoPsi]

Information sustaining itself is predicated on nothing known to exist (unless you believe it first).It's predicated on the fact that stuff continues to exist without any effort on the part of my phenomenal awareness.


Objective phenomea would continue to exist without our being aware of them regardless of whether or not they are God-thought or self-sustaining.

You're whole argument is basically that they must be self-sustaining because they're there.

My belief that it is self-sustaining is no more or less complex than your belief that god sustains it.


I'm torn between worndering here if you either just don't really understand what it means to construct a theory parsimoniously or if you just can accept the conclusion. It may be a bit of both...

Look, both theories are trying to find the missing piece of the puzzle ("why does the Universe exist?") Your atheistic solution to the missing piece is based upon something you've never encountered - either self-sustaining information or some self-sustaining substance. The theistic soloution is based on consciousness - something we have encountered.

Also, my belief that it is self-sustaining is justified, since it sustains itself.


Your belief is only based upon your belief - not on your observations. All your observations have shown you is that the phenomenal universe exists. The rest is theory - and that inclues both the God-theory or self-sustaining theory.


I think you're a deist, right? Theists believe in a personal god. Does god answer your prayers?


That's far to complicated a question for me to answer easily. The only answer I can give you is that I believe we are from time to time given guidance in life via the events, opportunities and encounters that come our way.


I don't want to ask them. I want to ask the robot. Or a zombie. Won't they answer precisely the same way you do?


Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the programing. I think that psi tests might go some way towards solving this. But why do you think the robot (or toaster oven or fridge) has phenomenal experience in the first place?

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

What makes you think that existence requires a 'sustainer', let alone a sentient personage to do the 'sustaining'? Your central point of contention seems to be:

"Reality requires a 'sustainer' and materialism fails to posit one. Therefore, it is incorrect."


I have never claimed that reality requries a sustainer. I have only ever made it clear that God is a much more parsimonious theory, being predicated on consciousness, than reality being self (or auto) sustaining (as either information or "uncuttable" matter) since this is predicated on nothing but itself.

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

I don't usually say this sort of thing, but this is turning into a repetitious lie on your part. Most theists, including you, don't believe in a god that is nothing more or less than an analogy to consciousness.


This is a baseless and futile accusation. The God theory almost certainly has it's basis in the sense of the Other (than Self) in consciousness.

God is endowed with all sorts of extra attributes that we've all been listing for pages now. The mechanisms for all those attributes are unknowns.


I don't care what attributes you or anyone else insists God must be endowed with. That's solely a private hobby of yours as far as I'm concerned.

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

HypnoPsi's invocation of God is undefined, unnecessary and unsupported.


I'll define "God" as and when further evidence becomes available. You want to play with possible definitions talk to Paul.

~
HypnoPsi

[paximperium]

I have never claimed that reality requries a sustainer. I have only ever made it clear that God is a much more parsimonious theory, being predicated on consciousness, than reality being self (or auto) sustaining (as either information or "uncuttable" matter) since this is predicated on nothing but itself.
Which continues to be complete and utter nonsense.
Your continued repeated dishonest statement that "Goddidit!!!" is somehow more parsimonious is absurd and build on nothing but straw.

To break down your argument:
Materialist: The universe is made of stuff. Stuff seems to interact via known natural laws to produce various phenomena. One of these phenomena seems to be consciousness. We don't know why this occurs.
You: The universe is made of stuff but consciousness(as I define it to suit my purposes) is apparently somehow independent of this stuff therefore consciousness is the only truly known things therefore god(as however I define it) is real. I know this because I said so.

You can correct me anytime.

[HypnoPsi]

To summarize your long meandering post:
"Immaterialist state "We don't know but god is involved" is more parsimonious then the Materialist statement of "We don't know"."

Correct me if I find your hypocrisy and nonsense exceedingly funny.


You know it's just ashame there isn't an equivalent recognition in this forum for the most useless posts as there is the procedure of nomination on those considered the best.

Your statement above is based on absolutely nothing that anyone on either side has been saying in this whole thread.

~
HypnoPsi

[paximperium]

I'll define "God" as and when further evidence becomes available. You want to play with possible definitions talk to Paul.
Translation:"I'll define god when I get to move the goalpost later on if any evidence contradicts my version of it."

[paximperium]

You know it's just ashame there isn't an equivalent recognition in this forum for the most useless posts as there is the procedure of nomination on those considered the best.

Your statement above is based on absolutely nothing that anyone on either side has been saying in this whole thread.

~
HypnoPsi
Really? So you're hand waving my summary of your nonsense away? Seems very close to the nonsense you've been spouting all this time.
Come on, give it a shot. Summarize exactly what you're saying. Be very very exact about your definition on parsimony and "god".
Maybe you're much smarter than I am. Let me see how different it really is.

Somehow I expect you to play a semantic games and avoid real definitions so you can always move the goal post or chicken out of it. I've never expected more from idealist/solipcistic(or whatever you attempt to dishonestly label yourself) who use little semantic games to support your little delusions.

[triadboy]

Idealists: What does 'physical' mean to you?


I know I'm in the 'physical' when I hear the snap of the rubber glove.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I have never claimed that reality requries a sustainer. I have only ever made it clear that God is a much more parsimonious theory, being predicated on consciousness, than reality being self (or auto) sustaining (as either information or "uncuttable" matter) since this is predicated on nothing but itself.



Wait a second now........God is a more parsimonious theory?

OK, let's examine this.

From the cogito we know that thought exists. But we only know that thought exists because knowledge is predicated on thought. In other words we know that thought exists only because knowledge would be impossible without thought, thought being the necessary condition for knowledge. The cogito is a truism and nothing else.

How is it that we move from the necessary precondition for us to speak of knowledge to the most parsimonious explanation for ultimate reality? I've heard some big leaps in my day, but that's an absolute whopper. Our knowledge of thought existing is primarily a statement about our state of knowledge in the face of radical doubt. It was not meant, nor does it demonstrate any ontological condition, particularly not a demonstration of the primary constituent of the universe.

Why is it any less a leap to move from consciousness as ultimate reality than it is move from "energy" as the ultimate reality? Doesn't consciousness itself depend on an animating force? Is there not something more fundamental than consciousness necessarily? Is consciousness self-animating somehow? Is that part of the definition of consciousness?

[HypnoPsi]

How do you know you are not a p-zombie? Perhaps you only think you're conscious, when in reality, all your "thoughts" are just information being passed up from a subconscious level over which you have no control whatsoever.


You know, Pixy. I honestly wonder about you... First there is your claim that toaster ovens are aware - and modern ones are self-aware - then there is response to AkuManiMan in this thread (post #600) and now there's this response to Malerin.

How can you not see that the very notion of an "I" that is aware of it's own existence as a conscious being removes any notion of the observer in question being a p-zombie?

~
HypnoPsi

[paximperium]

How can you not see that the very notion of an "I" that is aware of it's own existence as a conscious being removes any notion of the observer in question being a p-zombie?

Except for being completely and utterly wrong, yeah right. More hand waving using vague semantics in an attempt to dodge the question.

How do you know your notion of "I" isn't an artificial construct of Bob's dreams? How do you know any of your thoughts and awareness are your own and not someone elses?

I could give you drugs and completely dissociate yourself from everything you consider "I". I could give you a seizure and make "I" and everything dissolve away. So your "I" is nothing and can be easily taken away.
Go read the article provided by Dr. Ramachandran and you'll see how "I" falls apart all the time once you're brain is damaged...oops but that'll be too materialistic for your woo.

Try again:
How do you know you're conscious and not a p-zombie?

[HypnoPsi]

Toasters exist.


Yes....

Toasters are aware of its internal temperature and time.


No. Toasters are not aware of temperature or the passing of time at all. Toasters mechanically (in software or hardware) respond to signals. That's it. Nothing more. The core processor and software kernel in a toaster does not know what temperature and time are at all. It responds to nothing more than binary input.

Toasters are not like us at all. We have the ability to translate ones and zeros into the qualia of temperature and time. Computers do not have qualia. They are mechanically operated chinese rooms (as in John Searl's analogy) with nobody home.

Toasters are zombies.

Expensive toasters are able to determine the exact crispiness of the toast, the type of toast or if it is bagel, crossaint, the type of heat to use, the length of time to toast it. etc.


See above.

A toaster has sense data and is able to act upon it and even make judgements on it. Yes it is self-aware in a very limited sense but it has senses and abilities superior to yours.


This is absurd. It doesn't even have qualitative senses and abilities in the first place let alone ones that are superior to human beings.

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
How on Earth is it an advancement for the world to think that toaster ovens (and now fridges) are conscious and self-aware?

~
HypnoPsiTo approach neurobiology as a field of science; mechanisticly and functionally view thereby gaining new knowledge on brain function and treatments for disease instead of relying on superstition, delusion and magic.


No. You are just deluding yourself by using a common language to describe both computation and cognition (subjective experience).

There is absolutely no reason at all to believe this works in either direction. Dennett, for example, can describe thermostat "behaviour" as "thinking" about 'too hot', 'too cold', and 'just right' all he wants. It simply doesn't make it true. Similarly, you can describe cognition in computational terms as much as you want without that making it true.

Why do you think it's true?

~
HypnoPsi

[paximperium]

This is absurd. It doesn't even have qualitative senses and abilities in the first place let alone ones that are superior to human beings.

So the qualia of anything has to be the same as humans to be considered consciousness on your part?

Do expand on this issue. Let me see how you define consciousness using your arbitrary moving goalpost.

[HypnoPsi]

It's like a 12th century peasant laughing at the concept of tiny little life forms causing disease.


No it is absolutely not like this in the slightest. We can see bacteria under a microscope. Computer consciousness is pure theory that requires blind faith.

The germ theory of disease (at least some diseases) is testable. Computer consciousness isn't.

~
HypnoPsi

[Z]

But how do you know that, HP? For all I know, you lack these qualitative senses, as well.

Unless you're claiming some new form of psi that lets you feel the senses of machines, I claim foul.

That a machine is as yet unable to express the fact that it has qualitative states is without a doubt. That a machine lacks qualitative states is deeply in doubt. After all, we're nothing more but software and hardware as well.

[articulett]

I think you are confusing "feelings" for consciousness. It is but one aspect of our consciousness. Feelings evolved because they are a good way to facilitate the survival and reproduction of the genes which code for such things.

They are not necessary or useful in a toaster. Neither is self-reflection. But these are just feedback loops-- not magic.

An infant doesn't think the words "too hot" or "too cold" either...

[articulett]

Feelings are part of our feedback loop--they provoke our actions and thoughts.

[Ichneumonwasp]

No. Toasters are not aware of temperature or the passing of time at all. Toasters mechanically (in software or hardware) respond to signals. That's it. Nothing more. The core processor and software kernel in a toaster does not know what temperature and time are at all. It responds to nothing more than binary input.


HypnoPsi


What do you mean by "aware"? What do you mean that toasters do not know what temperature and time are? What do you mean by "know"?

Without clear definitions there is no getting off the merry-go-round.

[paximperium]

No. You are just deluding yourself by using a common language to describe both computation and cognition (subjective experience).

There is absolutely no reason at all to believe this works in either direction. Dennett, for example, can describe thermostat "behaviour" as "thinking" about 'too hot', 'too cold', and 'just right' all he wants. It simply doesn't make it true. Similarly, you can describe cognition in computational terms as much as you want without that making it true.

Are you done deluding yourself by attacking a strawman? Be careful, it is quite flammable.

I never claimed that the study of the brain and computers are the same, I am saying that by removing all the useless magic dogmatic fantasy that you espouse from the study of the brain and consciousness, we have made more progress that your forebearer's "demons cause mental disorder" BS. Approaching the study of the brain as a materialistic organ has lead to more progress in this field of study in the last few years than all the dualistic garbage out there.

Why do you think it's true?
About what? Approaching brain science as a materialistic organ? Because it's been shown to be true by all the research out there. Consciousness is a product of brain function. Full stop. No god or magic there.

[HypnoPsi]

In order for something to qualify as an evolutionary explanation, all it has to do is have a demonstrable survival benefit under certain environmental conditions.


Why would some master program or other not suffice. Why do you think evolution would have to produce subjective awareness as a survival benefit?

To rephrase what I said before, consciousness in this sense is essentially a mental illusion or construct based on the centralization of sensory input from environmental stimuli.


Reframing nonsense does not make it any less nonsensical. A "menal illusion" to whom? And what for?

One of the brain's main functions is to process information. Damage parts of the brain and the consciousness suffers, as we see in lesion studies, Alzheimer's patients, and those suffering various mental illnesses. Cause enough damage and the consciousness shuts off, often irrevocibly.


Processing changes when you change the processor. That doesn't say anything about consciousness. The brain is like a TV set or radio for consciousness, that's all.

Can you give any examples of laws and information causing themselves to exist?I assume this translates into your asking me to prove that matter causes itself to exist, which is an absurd request because it's based on the assumptions of your theistic model that do not translate into any other models.


No. You're just trying to avoid the question. However you choose to describe it, it the Universe is uncreated it is therefore self (or auto) sustaining (or perpetuting or generating or whatever).

You have yet to prove that consciousness is self-sustaining,


I have never claimed that consciousness is self-sustaining.

~
HypnoPsi

[Z]

Processing changes when you change the processor. That doesn't say anything about consciousness. The brain is like a TV set or radio for consciousness, that's all.

So what is it a brain is designed to receive? What is consciousness composed of, that it can be transmitted and received? And where is the transmitter? Is it possible to tune two or more brains into the same consciousness? Can consciousness be blocked by placing a brain into a lead case or some other barrier? Why is one consciousness generally associated with one brain, and no other whatsoever?

Unfortunately, the answers to these questions have been researched over the centuries, and the idea that 'the brain is a radio or tv for the consciousness' long ago tossed out by intelligent men.

Sadly, until you let go of your 'ghost in the system', your understanding of human intelligence and thought can go no farther.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Why would some master program or other not suffice. Why do you think evolution would have to produce subjective awareness as a survival benefit?




HypnoPsi


God, that's easy. Evolution is parsimonious -- remember that word -- arriving at the easiest solution based on previous solutions to problems. We need feelings and motivational states -- those bits that primarily comprise qualia -- because they provide the means to assign value. Without valuation, we have no reason to do one or another thing. Valuation has to show up somehow. What's wrong with emotional experience?

[HypnoPsi]

As I've said, I believe in the evidence for a low level of psi ability in humans and that some NDE accounts are genuine.And all such evidence is behavioral. Try again.

Here is what wikipedia says about behavior. Do you disagree with this?

Behavior or behaviour (see spelling differences) refers to the actions or reactions of an object or organism, usually in relation to the environment.


That's fine about behaviour. Psi experience is subjective experience that may or may not alter behaviour somehow.


Can you give me even a single example of an aspect of your consciousness that is not behavioral? Just one?


Subjective experience is not behavioural. You're just playing with language again thinking that if you can define it in behavioural terms it becomes nothing more than behaviour and, subsequently, in short order, we're back to self-aware toaster ovens.


Here is a clue -- an "action" is not just a physical action. It is anything an organism could be said to do. Any verb at all.


And again, just because you can use the same language to describe two very different things does not make them equivalent.

What leads to them both being *almost* the same thing is the fact that nobody can provide a logically coherent reason for why they should be different other than identity. And identity is trivial.


No, it's not only about identity. It's about the subjective experiences the experiencer has.

Since consciousness perceives in terms of thought it it not more rational to assume that objective phenomena must somehow have the same fundamental basis?I don't understand this statement.


We subjectively experience things qualitatively as things - not as one's and zeros. This is best explained by things themselves being qualitative in the first place.


Atheism only denies a theistic God. You know, the omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal, outside of space and time, gray hair, hates fags and women, and kills firstborn children type?


I care nothing for this model of "God".

Just using computational language for cognition and computation is not enough.Correct, except for the fact that there is zero evidence that consciousness is not computational.

If you disagree, feel free to give us an example. Just one example, HypnoPsi. Put your money where your mouth is.


You're belief that there is no evidence against consciousness being computational, even if we entertain the idea, does nothing to prove that it is computational. And, again, I have no intention of proving a negative. How does money come into this?

Again... and again... and again... how does this show that consciousness is not computational?

And again... and again... and again... I have no intention of proving a negative. NDE's are experiences while consciousness is separated from the brain. Either look up the evidence or don't. Just don't expect me to spoon feed it to you or hand-hold you through the process of interpreting it correctly.

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

I'm not saying there is no consciousness. I'm asking how you justify it, and how you determine whether something is conscious.


You're question to Malerin above is actually two questions; namely 'how does he know he is conscious' and 'how does he know others are conscious'. Why do you expect an answer that proves his experience of his consciousness (or other consciousnesses) to you when that, again, is yet another question altogether.

In particular, since a philosophical zombie would answer all the questions with the same answers, how do you know you're not a zombie? Zippie the Zombie thinks it's just as ludicrous to deny that he is conscious.


If zippie is conclusively known to be a zombie then zippie isn't conscious. How can something be both?

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Really? Are you sure all your thoughts, memories and very existence are yours and not Bob the Dreamer?


Unparsimonious theorising. Pointless.

Do you have any evidence that OOBE's are anything more than products of a dysfunctional brain since we can reproduce these OOBE with chemicals?


Can these chemicals induce psi or allow OOBE'rs to return with information they could not have accumulated with their senses?

~
HypnoPsi

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm torn between worndering here if you either just don't really understand what it means to construct a theory parsimoniously or if you just can accept the conclusion. It may be a bit of both...

Look, both theories are trying to find the missing piece of the puzzle ("why does the Universe exist?") Your atheistic solution to the missing piece is based upon something you've never encountered - either self-sustaining information or some self-sustaining substance. The theistic soloution is based on consciousness - something we have encountered.
The theistic solution is based on human consciousness that is transitory and temporary and certainly not sufficient for mainaining a consistent world. So you have to add god to the model, something you've never encountered.

Why don't we just agree that the world is self-sustaining and be done with it?


This is a baseless and futile accusation. The God theory almost certainly has it's basis in the sense of the Other (than Self) in consciousness.
What? Now there is a sense of the Other? Why can't it just be a sense of the other, without a capital letter?


I don't care what attributes you or anyone else insists God must be endowed with. That's solely a private hobby of yours as far as I'm concerned.
Oh for crying out loud. You're the one endowing him with attributes. Memory, for example.


I'll define "God" as and when further evidence becomes available. You want to play with possible definitions talk to Paul.
What the hell? Of course you've defined him. He creates and maintains the universe using memory he doesn't have. He splits consciousness into billions of individual ones. He is everlasting.

If all you say is "I use the word god for whatever it is that maintains the world," then we would have no disagreement. Of course, we would be saying exactly the same thing using different terminology.

~~ Paul

[Z]

Can these chemicals induce psi or allow OOBE'rs to return with information they could not have accumulated with their senses?

~
HypnoPsi

Since psi doesn't appear to exist, chemicals certainly can't induce it - any more than chemicals can induce magic or the ability to walk through walls.

As to the second part of your question - certainly. If a chemical reaction can induce the conditions that people call 'OOBE', obviously it induces all the same conditions. Besides - you should never underestimate the ability of one's senses to operate strangely under strange conditions.

That, and never underestimate just how horribly poor the controls were in these experiments... :D

[HypnoPsi]

My opinion is that your suggestion to funnel resources into NDE and medium research betrays your ulterior motives.


What ulterior motives??? I want to know more about it. What's ulterior in that?

You keep asserting that the only alternative to God-mind is "self-sustaining" or "uncreated." What, exactly, do those terms mean?


They mean exactly what they mean. That the atheist Universe inherently and without purpose provides for it's own capacity to exist.


Because according to materialism, every result must have a cause.


So, what causes the Universe to exist according to materialism then?

~
HypnoPsi

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

How can you not see that the very notion of an "I" that is aware of it's own existence as a conscious being removes any notion of the observer in question being a p-zombie?
But the zombie has precisely the same notion. So either it is conscious or you aren't.

You do understand that the zombie is indistinguishable from a normal human, right?

~~ Paul

[HypnoPsi]

An entirely subjective survey of CPR patients, and a second-hand anecdote?


Pixy, please understand that anecdote means "unwritten".

~
HypnoPsi

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If zippie is conclusively known to be a zombie then zippie isn't conscious. How can something be both?
How would you know Zippie is a zombie?

You know, you really should make an effort to answer this question. Then we would have a better idea of what you think consciousness actually is.

~~ Paul

[Z]

How would you know Zippie is a zombie?

You know, you really should make an effort to answer this question. Then we would have a better idea of what you think consciousness actually is.

~~ Paul

Duh.. it's obvious, man. Zippy can't have out of body experiences.





OH MY GOD! I'M A ZOMBIE!!!!

[HypnoPsi]

Hence, discussion with him on the point is... pointless.


As I've said before, it wouldn't matter if there was no evidence for psi and NDE's. God is still a more parsimonious theory for existence than any answer drawn from an atheist position.

~
HypnoPsi

[Z]

As I've said before, it wouldn't matter if there was no evidence for psi and NDE's. God is still a more parsimonious theory for existence than any answer drawn from an atheist position.

~
HypnoPsi

OK, let's explore this line of thinking. Assuming that there is no evidence for any psi experience - what makes God a more parsimonious theory for existence than a universe that has always existed, in one form or another?

First, what is God?

Since we're removing all psi experience from the discussion, we're also removing the silly notion that consciousness is independent of matter. After all, the only evidence you've offered to separate matter from consciousness is psi/oobe/nde. Remove those, and all experience tells us consciousness arises from matter, r.e. specifically the brain.

So what, then, is God in this discussion? And how is positing its existence more parsimonious than assuming that all-that-is has simply always existed in one form or another? Certainly, it appears to have existed before we appeared, and appears to continue to exist after our passing. Large sections of it seem to remain constant in spite of the absolute lack of brains in those areas. Evidence suggests, in fact, that brains - and therefore consciousness at all - are only passing momentary phenomena on the cosmic scale. How, then, is God parsimonious?

Please, elaborate.

[HypnoPsi]

You have misplaced your argument, belief in a spirit , soul and all that led to as much destruction as no belief in a soul.


I disagree here. I'd say that (so called) "revealed" religions (or, at the very least, their leaders and adherents) have used their religion as an excuse to harm others.

With the likes of Peter Singer, the very idea of a "person" is just like a program that develops after birth.

Assuming the person to ultimately be nothing but a fantasy is the most dehumanising thing you can ever do and harm always begins with dehumanising people.

How can you tell the difference between quanta and godthink or butterfly dreams?


Butterfly dreams or brains in vats or anything else are all unparsimonious theorising. We don't have data about some outside butterfly or brains in vats dreaming this universe.

That doesn't mean that the God mind thinking the Universe isn't a butterfly or brain in a vat it's just that we have no reason to imagine these things. All we can say of God as I see is is the master-thinker of the Universe.

~
HypnoPsi

[paximperium]

Unparsimonious theorising. Pointless.
EXACTLY.
Are you sure all your thoughts, senses and existence are not from Bob the dreamer god?
To quote some woo-mongerer:
"Unparsimimonious theorizing", thanks for for refuting your own garbage.

I now expect the special pleading to begin.


Can these chemicals induce psi or allow OOBE'rs to return with information they could not have accumulated with their senses?
Since psi doesn't exist and I can definitely produce OOBE that return with no useful or completely wrong information just like all of your garbage psi studies. Yeah.

[paximperium]

As I've said before, it wouldn't matter if there was no evidence for psi and NDE's. God is still a more parsimonious theory for existence than any answer drawn from an atheist position.

Keep saying that, maybe if you repeat it often enough you can change reality...or mode likely delude yourself into thinking you nonsense is rational.

[HypnoPsi]

Your continued repeated dishonest statement that "Goddidit!!!" is somehow more parsimonious is absurd and build on nothing but straw.


Nope. Atheist theories about information or "matter" sustaining themselves are based on nothing at all but pure belief. Consciousness is not a belief. God's still theory here though, albeit the most parsimonious one.

You just don't like it is all. Why should anyone care about that?

To break down your argument:
Materialist: The universe is made of stuff. Stuff seems to interact via known natural laws to produce various phenomena. One of these phenomena seems to be consciousness. We don't know why this occurs.
You: The universe is made of stuff but consciousness(as I define it to suit my purposes) is apparently somehow independent of this stuff therefore consciousness is the only truly known things therefore god(as however I define it) is real. I know this because I said so.

You can correct me anytime.


There are so many things needing corrected here that it's hard to know where to begin.

Again, I think most of your questions could be answered by reading earlier post in this thead.

I don't even believe there is any fundamental prima materia to begin with. Heck, some of the materialists hae also redefined matter to mean little more than properties of information interactions.

There's just too much to bring you up to speed on here. Read the earlier posts.

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Translation:"I'll define god when I get to move the goalpost later on if any evidence contradicts my version of it."

No. I am defining God as the conscious thinker of the laws/information that is the phenemenal Universe.

In this context, I am not claiming anything about God being any kind of personal God or even of having a memory (that Paul finds so important).

Fun with Paul aside, for all I know "God" may just have thought up the laws of the Universe as they began and have had no concern whatsoever about how they are interacting.

Or "God" may even be Dancing David's butterfly dreaming us all up.

Naturally, I do have some thoughts about "God" drawn from what I've read in NDE's and stuff but my overarching point here is that we need new evidence and should always be prepared to redefine models in the light of new evidence.

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

From the cogito we know that thought exists. But we only know that thought exists because knowledge is predicated on thought. In other words we know that thought exists only because knowledge would be impossible without thought, thought being the necessary condition for knowledge. The cogito is a truism and nothing else.

How is it that we move from the necessary precondition for us to speak of knowledge to the most parsimonious explanation for ultimate reality?


Once again. I am only saying that God is a more parsimonious explanation for existence than any atheistic theory that the Universe is self-sustaining for the very simple reason that God is predicated on something known (consciousness) while either information sustaining itslef or matter (as substance) sustaining itslelf isn't based on anything known.

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

How do you know your notion of "I" isn't an artificial construct of Bob's dreams?


I don't. I only know that I have no reason to theorise beyond "thinker of the Universe". For all I know it could be a Bob. Or a Susan. Or a Bob-Susan. Or Dancing David's dreaming butterfly. Or it could be PlumJam.

It's all unparsimonious theorising based on no data.

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

The theistic solution is based on human consciousness that is transitory and temporary and certainly not sufficient for mainaining a consistent world.

I disagree that human consciousness is transitory and temporary, remember? (Though I do agree it's not maintaining the Universe, which is why I'm a theist and not an idealist.)

So you have to add god to the model, something you've never encountered.


By theorising parsimoniously we are always, inevitably, theorising the final piece of the puzzle.

Why don't we just agree that the world is self-sustaining and be done with it?


Because it's not predicated on anything known. A conscious thinker of the Universe is predicated on the human conscious thinker.

~
HypnoPsi

What? Now there is a sense of the Other? Why can't it just be a sense of the other, without a capital letter?

You're the one endowing him with attributes. Memory, for example.


I theorise nothing beyond conscious thinker of the Universe. For all I know God might have thought up laws and not ever consider anything beyond that.


What the hell? Of course you've defined him.

No, I haven't.

He creates and maintains the universe using memory he doesn't have. He splits consciousness into billions of individual ones. He is everlasting.


Okay, I'll go with God being the originator, somehow, of our consciousnesses. As for everlasting, well, since God is the thinker of spacetime I don't think that applies in anyway we can comprehend.

If all you say is "I use the word god for whatever it is that maintains the world," then we would have no disagreement. Of course, we would be saying exactly the same thing using different terminology.~~ Paul


That we would. But my answer is no. A conscious thinker is more parsimonious than self-sustaining being based on consciousness while self-sustaining information/matter is based on nothing known.

~
HypnoPsi

[paximperium]

Nope. Atheist theories about information or "matter" sustaining themselves are based on nothing at all but pure belief. No. It is based on ignorance and intellectual honesty. We don't know therefore we don't make things up just to make us feel better.

Consciousness is not a belief. God's still theory here though, albeit the most parsimonious one. No. God is not a theory, it is your pathetic attempt to use a poorly defined term(which you cowardly refuse to clearly define) to weasel in your woo into something with a semblance or rationality. I could change the word in Natural Laws, Super Chicken or the FSM and make as much "parsimonious" sense as your nonsense.


You just don't like it is all. Why should anyone care about that?Why would it be wrong for me to dislike the fact that materialist and scientist state "We don't know" while keep searching for an answer and you make a pile of garbage semantic blanket claims with absolutely nothing to back it up but semantic contortions?

People should care because woo-mongerer's like you are in insult to science and progress. Your garbage is actually a retarder of humanity's progress.


There's just too much to bring you up to speed on here. Read the earlier posts.I've been lurking in the background since the start and have seen nothing more than dishonest weaseling.

That's the simple summary of your entire BS argument. Come on, try hard and summarize your claim. Try hard.

[PixyMisa]

You know, Pixy. I honestly wonder about you... First there is your claim that toaster ovens are aware - and modern ones are self-aware
Simple observation.

then there is response to AkuManiMan in this thread (post #600) and now there's this response to Malerin.
You can lead a horse to water.

How can you not see that the very notion of an "I" that is aware of it's own existence as a conscious being removes any notion of the observer in question being a p-zombie?
And sometimes it will drink.

That's the point.

The very concept of a p-zombie is incoherent, because a p-zombie can raise and answer this question for itself.

So can a 4-bit microprocessor, of the kind found in the more sophisticated toasters.

Thank you for utterly demolishing every part of your own argument.

[paximperium]

No. I am defining God as the conscious thinker of the laws/information that is the phenemenal Universe.

In this context, I am not claiming anything about God being any kind of personal God or even of having a memory (that Paul finds so important).
I can completely accept that term. I'll call it Bill the Brainless/unthinking...or natural laws of the cosmos.

Fun with Paul aside, for all I know "God" may just have thought up the laws of the Universe as they began and have had no concern whatsoever about how they are interacting.
Nice backtracking. Now you're advocating that Bill the brainless somehow can think and somehow has some intelligence.

Or "God" may even be Dancing David's butterfly dreaming us all up.
Okay. How does anything that is outside our reality and has absolutely no affect on our reality at all(despite being the alleged foundation of it) have any relevance to us or anything we do?

Naturally, I do have some thoughts about "God" drawn from what I've read in NDE's and stuff but my overarching point here is that we need new evidence and should always be prepared to redefine models in the light of new evidence.
Sure. So why are you espousing an unevidenced pile of crap that has no relevance to anything except to your woo?

[paximperium]

I don't. I only know that I have no reason to theorise beyond "thinker of the Universe". For all I know it could be a Bob. Or a Susan. Or a Bob-Susan. Or Dancing David's dreaming butterfly. Or it could be PlumJam.

It's all unparsimonious theorising based on no data.

~
HypnoPsi
Translation:
Materialist: Stuff just is. Don't know why yet.
You: Stuff needs a mind to keep it from dissipating into magic dust but it behaves just like those pesky materialist claim it does.

Correct me if I find your definition parsimony to be better defined as "what makes me feel good but has answered absolutely nothing and added more junk into the mix".

[Silentknight]

I disagree. NDE's are OOBE's.
First, if it's a matter of personal opinion, not fact, then you can't draw factual conclusions from them as premises. Second, we know that the temporal-parietal lobe of the brain is directly responsible for out-of-body experiences. Drug or electrical stimulation of this part of the brain produces these experiences. Many people, myself included, have trained themselves to trigger these experiences at will.

There's no evidence that anything leaves the body. At all. When my cat jumps on me or my alarm goes off, triggering my senses of touch or hearing respectively, it sends a signal to my brain, the experience ends, and I wake up. Specific physiological conditions are required for me to get these. By your reasoning (and plumjam's) my interpretation of my personal experience is sufficient to trump any arguments to the contrary that you or anyone else might come up with.

QED
The largest (and longest study) ever done on NDE's rejected materialistic causes (hypercarbia, cerebral hypoxia, etc.) , and had this to say:

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm
They also had this to say:

Thus, induced experiences are not identical to NDE, and so, besides age, an unknown mechanism causes NDE by stimulation of neurophysiological and neurohumoral processes at a subcellular level in the brain in only a few cases during a critical situation such as clinical death. These processes might also determine whether the experience reaches consciousness and can be recollected.

In other words, they're still searching for a mechanism, specifically a mechanism that acts by altering the physical processes of the brain. This is what the study considers evidence, and is more than immaterialists are willing to admit. Besides, the study neglected to take into account that memories consist of neural connections and electrochemical patterns, and that the traumatized brain tends to reconfigure a lot of these existing patterns. It's possible for people to remember things they never experienced, as in false memory implantation. Given that the brain's chemistry and circuitry undergo system shock during trauma, it would actually be surprising for there NOT to be new memories formed.

Why would some master program or other not suffice. Why do you think evolution would have to produce subjective awareness as a survival benefit?

Reframing nonsense does not make it any less nonsensical. A "menal illusion" to whom? And what for?
Read over your own posts before admonishing me, first of all. While you're at it, read the sources I showed you with the evolutionary explanation for consciousness and awareness, which phrased it better than I could do in lay terms. Ignoring evidence that contradicts your beliefs does not make you right.

If there were numerous road signs pointing to a centralized location, you would assume that the location is of certain significance. If there were numerous sensory inputs leading into a centralized processing area, you would assume the same. Put all of these experiences together and, instead of just involuntarily reacting to stimuli, an organism is able to use them to guide its behavior and react in more complex ways. The sum of its experiences gives it a picture of a surrounding world, which is likely what leads to the sense that there is a perceiving self. In other words, if you rotate your head and the world revolves the other way, if you touch something and feel it, if you see, hear, and smell things around you, and if you're able to make the proper associations between these things, then your brain is going to put together all the inward-pointing arrows and assume there's an "I" that it's all happening to.

We actually know that the cerebral cortex is responsible for consciousness, or if you prefer, likely to be responsible for consciousness. In brain damage patients who have lost their cerebral cortex, all they have left are involuntary bodily functions and are reduced to a vegetative state. They're still alive, but the damage prevents them from experiencing a sense of self or conscious awareness. Their picture of the surrounding world is destroyed, gone forever.

Processing changes when you change the processor. That doesn't say anything about consciousness. The brain is like a TV set or radio for consciousness, that's all.
This analogy fails when you realize that no two people are receiving the same consciousness. Furthermore, if the consciousness is separate from physiology as you claim, then by what mechanism does it interact with the brain? Why is the brain even necessary? What does it do, just sit there wasting glucose and oxygen while pretending to be the center of consciousness?

No. You're just trying to avoid the question. However you choose to describe it, it the Universe is uncreated it is therefore self (or auto) sustaining (or perpetuting or generating or whatever).
Really? So what exactly is it that would cause the universe to disappear if there weren't something to "sustain" it, as you prefer to call it?

You also missed my point yet again. I explained previously how "laws" and "information" are what we as humans label our understanding of the universe and how we quantify our knowledge of it. I never said the universe was made of laws.

I have never claimed that consciousness is self-sustaining.
It sure looked like you were implying it when you said that because "materialist atheists" can't explain how the universe is self-sustaining, we must go with the more "parsimonious" explanation of a God-consciousness. So what, in your belief system, sustains consciousness? I'd tell you the medical explanation, but you're likely to ignore that.

[rocketdodger]

Subjective experience is not behavioural. You're just playing with language again thinking that if you can define it in behavioural terms it becomes nothing more than behaviour and, subsequently, in short order, we're back to self-aware toaster ovens.
And again, just because you can use the same language to describe two very different things does not make them equivalent.

But... you agreed that a good definition of "behavior" is that it refers to "actions of an organism." Which means "things an organism can do." Which means anything that a verb refers to.

Can you not "experience?" Are you not "experiencing" right now? Is it not proper to say you "experienced" such and such in the past? Isn't "to experience" a verb?

Or is this just more special pleading on your part?

Why don't you provide a definition of "behavior" that suits you, and we can go from there.


No, it's not only about identity. It's about the subjective experiences the experiencer has.


Which can only be mathematically explained by identity.

Look, there are only two choices. Either subjective experience is the result of some unknowable -- yes, unknowable -- magic or it is simply identity. I think identity is much more "parsimonious," to use a term you seem to be interested in.

We subjectively experience things qualitatively as things - not as one's and zeros. This is best explained by things themselves being qualitative in the first place.

The action of your mind relies completely on electrochemical reactions. Yet you do not experience things as the movement of sodium or potassium across membranes.

That should give you a big clue.

You're belief that there is no evidence against consciousness being computational, even if we entertain the idea, does nothing to prove that it is computational. And, again, I have no intention of proving a negative.

I agree. What proves consciousness is computational is the fact that there is no aspect of consciousness, under any common definition, that cannot be reduced to a type of computation.

If you want to come up with a definition of consciousness that is exempt, go right ahead. We like to play that game.

Or, if you feel like there is some aspect of consciousness that can't be reduced to computation, please share. We like to play that game as well.

And again... and again... and again... I have no intention of proving a negative. NDE's are experiences while consciousness is separated from the brain. Either look up the evidence or don't. Just don't expect me to spoon feed it to you or hand-hold you through the process of interpreting it correctly.

Bold mine.

Are you sure you want to take that position? We are all wrong, but you can't be bothered to explain why?

Surely you are smart enough to see that such a position won't win you many supporters in any circles other than those of lunatics or bottom feeders.

[articulett]

You know, Pixy. I honestly wonder about you... First there is your claim that toaster ovens are aware - and modern ones are self-aware - then there is response to AkuManiMan in this thread (post #600) and now there's this response to Malerin.


Honestly, eh? I notice the people that use the word bizarrely like you are often engaging in a sort of double speak. They really mean "dishonestly".

Why would Pixy care what you "honestly" wonder about him any more than you would care what he "honestly" wonders about you?

Your communication is loaded with weird manipulations but very little substance. I suppose these helps you keep "believing in" whatever it is you "believe in". Too bad it keeps you from understanding some of the most fascinating things humans have discovered as you put down those who'd gladly share their knowledge with you.

[articulett]

Feelings are a feedback loop... your feelings produce your rationalizations, hypnopsi... it makes you uncomfortable to hold an irrational world view so you your brains seeks semantic ways to tell yourself that it's not irrational at all.

But all the belief in the world cannot make a false notion true. Wanting something to be true is a very good way to convince yourself it IS true, but a very bad way for finding out the actual truth.

[paximperium]

It sure looked like you were implying it when you said that because "materialist atheists" can't explain how the universe is self-sustaining, we must go with the more "parsimonious" explanation of a God-consciousness. So what, in your belief system, sustains consciousness? I'd tell you the medical explanation, but you're likely to ignore that.
You could easily replace his version of "god-mind" as sustainer of reality with Natural Laws of the Cosmos and it would be as "parsimonious" but that would just take all the woo out of it. :rolleyes:

[rocketdodger]

What ulterior motives??? I want to know more about it. What's ulterior in that?

Because your arguments for why a God-mind is more parsimonious than alternatives are biased by the fact that you want to know more about NDE's and mediums, which will only happen if everyone agrees that God-mind is a more pasimonious view.

That is what "ulterior" means.

Your motive for generating the arguments you present on this thread is not, as you claim, to come up with a better explanation for existence. It is to reconcile the objective world with your desire for NDEs, mediums, psi, and any other supernatural stuff to be real.

They mean exactly what they mean. That the atheist Universe inherently and without purpose provides for it's own capacity to exist.

That is your conclusion. It isn't ours' -- as we have repeatedly told you. It doesn't make any sense to say something can fully provide for it's own capacity to exist.


So, what causes the Universe to exist according to materialism then?

We have no idea. We can't have an idea, according to mathematics. That is why materialists admit that what is simply is.

You refuse to accept this, but it is clear that you also run into the same problem. What is the cause of the God-mind? Hmmm? Is it "self-caused?" What in tarnation does "self-caused" mean to an organism that is only able to conceive of spatiotemporal cause and effect relationships?

What is happening here is that you, as a spatiotemporal organism, are "filling in the blank" of this cause and effect relationship with God. That fixes the temporary problem for you, because you are somehow able to delude yourself into thinking that self-causing makes sense. We can't delude ourselves like that. We just shake our heads and give up because it is mathematically impossible for us to make sense of it.

Maybe you don't know enough math yet to see this? I dunno. But if you can understand anything, understand that artificially merging a cause and an effect into the same event is nonsense from the perspective of a spatiotemporal being.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Once again. I am only saying that God is a more parsimonious explanation for existence than any atheistic theory that the Universe is self-sustaining for the very simple reason that God is predicated on something known (consciousness) while either information sustaining itslef or matter (as substance) sustaining itslelf isn't based on anything known.

~
HypnoPsi


And I'm once again providing the actual argument that your contention is bunk for the simple reason that the only reason we "know" that thought exists is because thought is a necessary condition for knowledge. This tells us nothing about what is or is not the fundamental existent. It is simply not true that your "explanation" is more parsimonious, since you must make the same leap that anyone else must make.

The thought that is demonstrated by the cogito is not God-consciousness however you want to spin it; we know doubting because that is what we do everytime we re-engage in the cogito. The only thought that we know for certain is the ability to doubt everything. Are you really ready to found an entire ontology on the process of doubting?

And you neglected to address my other point -- the very idea of energy (the ability to do anything) seems to undergird even the existence of thought. The ability to think surely subsumes thinking itself? Why is this not the fundamental existent, some form of energy?

ETA:

Wow, I gotta tell you thanks, man. You've actually helped me, from your earlier contention, to see exactly why and where you are wrong, which, of course, helps my thinking along.

We know that thought exists. OK. We know this because thought is prior to knowledge; knowledge cannot exist without it. But there actually is something prior to thought itself -- the ability to think, as I mentioned above. Thinking is a form of work, consciousness is a form of work. The ability to do work is prior to the work itself, so energy is prior to thought, prior to consciousness.

You have inadvertently proved materialism. Thank you.

ETA ETA

Unless, of course, you want to argue that consciousness has no mechanism. But since it clearly does more than one thing -- this thing we call consciousness -- it must act according to some rules. Those rules must be prior to it, must be more fundamental. If they do not involve an underlying mechanism that we can understand, then you have proved the alternative -- magic.

So, since it is not possible that consciousness is the fundamental existent, which is it? Energy or magic? Take your pick.

[articulett]

Hypnopsi, you have asked no-one of their expertise...you have just presumed you know more than them. You are getting information from very knowledgeable people who are tailoring their answers specifically for you in a way that the highest paid professor could not, and yet you cannot hear it, because you believe that you have something to teach us, and we have nothing to teach you.

It's arrogant. And to any of us who have ever spun delusions for ourselves, it's obvious that you are using words in a weird way and talking down to others, because you desperately want to believe that NDE's are real. I once wanted very much to believe it too. At some point you either want the truth more than you want to keep believing you have it or you don't. This is not the forum for you if you have a vested interest in keeping your belief that NDE's are true.

This puts you in the same category as those diviners who, even after they fail the MDC, continue to believe in their powers.

[Dancing David]

Ok, at least this has the form, if not the content, of an explanation.
Now please provide an example of a proposition which is 'without referents to something, either experience or what have you'.
'god is an old man in a white robe'
'the idea of a self sustaining god that creates the universe is more parsimonius than a self sustaining universe'
'I know I am conscious'

[Dancing David]

I think his whole point is that he can't. It would have no meaning. We can't speak in terms of propositions that have no other referent, and that is why we can't speak of ultimate reality or know ultimate reality.
I gave a foolish answer anyways.

All we can know is what there appears to be in the universe. Which may or may no be.

[Dancing David]

Little point in that, I'm afraid.

One side has observed that all self-consistent ontologies that accurately reflect reality are of necessity functionally equivalent.

The other claims that Rupert Sheldrake proves the existence of God.

One side is right; the other side is not even wrong.


Badges, badges? We don't need no stinking badges!

Neither side is right, both sides are wrong. Some kinds of wrong are more equal than others.

Some people just are not comfortable doubting their deeply help beliefs. But hey, i doubt everything, most of the time.

[Ichneumonwasp]

All we can know is what there appears to be in the universe. Which may or may no be.


Yes, I agree.

[Dancing David]

I have never claimed that reality requries a sustainer. I have only ever made it clear that God is a much more parsimonious theory, being predicated on consciousness, than reality being self (or auto) sustaining (as either information or "uncuttable" matter) since this is predicated on nothing but itself.

~
HypnoPsi

Only because you make the same mistake a materialist makes, you assume that you know what 'consciousness' is, just as a materialist assumes they know what 'matter' is.

Neither has any more reality than the other.

I state in all serious, i can not prove that i am not a p-zombie. I exhibit all the behaviors of consciousness, but i can not prove that I am conscious.

If the fact that i exhibit the behaviors means that I am conscious, then so is a toaster, Albeit a different order of magnitude.

When Paul A. carefully explained to me that i just believed I had free will, it came as a shock to me. It is a deeply help belief.

But I can not prove that I have free will either.

It is simple, we can only label and describe behaviors, some we can ascribe as nouns. However, we can only use them as approximate models.

If I state that i have the behaviors of consciousness therefore I am conscious, then i have to concede that anything that exhibits those behaviors is conscious. it is all a matter of degree.

Cats, dogs and birds are conscious. As are insect, but of different orders of magnitude compared to humans who are fully functional. A toaster seems like a silly example to me but if we create a spectrum with humans/dolphins/chimps at one end...cats dogs, horses, cows...insects, arachnids... we can see that there are levels to which we ascribe the descriptor consciousness.

Now we can agree on the 'high' end rather readily but it gets really vague down at the other, I am not sure we would say that plants are conscious, nor bacteria and viruses. certainly not prions. But again it is a matter of definition.

So the idea that you have 'consciousness' while convenient, does not prove that consciousness exists.

A self sustaining god and a self sustaining set of energy is pretty equal in terms of parsimony.

You are just assuming that you are conscious, just as a materialist assumes that they are material.

Neither position can prove an ontology. Both are equal in terms of truth.
matter appears to exist. matter appears to exist.

Both are labels, both are true and both are false.

[Dancing David]

You know, Pixy. I honestly wonder about you... First there is your claim that toaster ovens are aware - and modern ones are self-aware - then there is response to AkuManiMan in this thread (post #600) and now there's this response to Malerin.

How can you not see that the very notion of an "I" that is aware of it's own existence as a conscious being removes any notion of the observer in question being a p-zombie?

~
HypnoPsi

No, not really
'"I" that is aware of it's own existence as a conscious being ' is a behavior, whatever you choose to define that 'I' as. It is a set of behaviors in phenomena, matter or godthink.

So if the p-zombie is defined as exhibiting 'all behaviors of consciousness' this includes the 'private' behaviors as well.

So nope, i am still a p-zombie who can not prove that I am conscious.

Really, just stop and think about it. How can a p-zombie prove that it is a p-zombie? Or not?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I disagree that human consciousness is transitory and temporary, remember?
Good, so you're the sort of person who is never unconscious and you're absolutely sure that you're going to last forever, in spite of no evidence for arbitrarily-old disembodied minds floating about. Your consciousness is still not all-pervasive, so it is still insufficient for maintaining the universe.


Because it's not predicated on anything known. A conscious thinker of the Universe is predicated on the human conscious thinker.
You just said the following:

P1. There is no evidence for any self-sustaining entities.

P2. There is evidence for human consciousness.

C1. Therefore there is evidence for self-sustaining universal consciousness.

It don't follow. I think you need to replace P1.


I theorise nothing beyond conscious thinker of the Universe. For all I know God might have thought up laws and not ever consider anything beyond that.
You theorize that he has memory, that he can sustain the universe, that the universal consciousness can be individuated. And you just theorized that god can think, which emphasizes that he has memory. Furthermore, if god never considered anything after thinking up the laws, then he is not the sustainer of the universe, only the creator.


A conscious thinker is more parsimonious than self-sustaining being based on consciousness while self-sustaining information/matter is based on nothing known.
You have to explain precisely the same observations that any other model has to explain. The only thing you have as a starting point is that you believe that the processes required to maintain the universe are similar to human consciousness. All you get from that assumption is a vague sort of imagination that might hold a picture of the universe. You get nothing else from that analogy. You cannot claim that your model has more parsimony, which means economy of explanation.

~~ Paul

[HypnoPsi]

And again, just because you can use the same language to describe two very different things does not make them equivalent.But... you agreed that a good definition of "behavior" is that it refers to "actions of an organism." Which means "things an organism can do." Which means anything that a verb refers to.


See above. Even if we use the word "behaviour" to define both subjective experiences as well as objective physiological processes we are still using the word in a qualitatively very different way.

Again, using the same word to describe two different things/activities does not make them equivalent.

Why don't you provide a definition of "behavior" that suits you, and we can go from there.


This has nothing even remotely to do with how you define "behaviour". It is only about how you apply the term - particularly if you are blinkering yourself to the fact that the subjective and objective realms are qualitatively different.

Look, there are only two choices. Either subjective experience is the result of some unknowable -- yes, unknowable -- magic or it is simply identity. I think identity is much more "parsimonious," to use a term you seem to be interested in.


To be quite frank I'm not sure where you're even going with this identity thing or why, but I'm guessing it's another play on words.


The action of your mind relies completely on electrochemical reactions.


I disagree entirely. Psi is extra sensory and I see no reason it's down to EM fields.


What proves consciousness is computational is the fact that there is no aspect of consciousness, under any common definition, that cannot be reduced to a type of computation.


And by the exact same logic, Dennett's thermostat "behaviour" can be reduced to "thoughts" about 'too hot', 'too cold' and 'just right'. The problem is that description is not the same thing as reality.

If you're creative enough, phenomenal objects can be described in terms of earth, air, fire and water. Still doesn't make it true. The computational theory of consciousness is a similar type of creative fiction.

Or, if you feel like there is some aspect of consciousness that can't be reduced to computation, please share.


All of it.


Either look up the evidence or don't. Just don't expect me to spoon feed it to you or hand-hold you through the process of interpreting it correctly.Are you sure you want to take that position? We are all wrong, but you can't be bothered to explain why?


The original authors explain things much better than I do. Now, can you name a single researcher who has experimental evidence as opposed to theoretical beliefs that consciousness is nothing more than the result of cellular computation?

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

You could easily replace his version of "god-mind" as sustainer of reality with Natural Laws of the Cosmos and it would be as "parsimonious" but that would just take all the woo out of it. :rolleyes:


Agnosticism: The view that even though the Universe and Natural Laws clearly exist one does not know how they exist.

Theism: The view that the Universe and Natural Laws are best explained by a supreme conscious thinker and that some property or substance that inherently supplies itself with the necessities of maintaining it's own existence is superfluous.

Atheism The view that the Universe and Natural Laws are best explained as self-sustaining and that a supreme conscious thinker is superfluous.

Theism is predicated on a known thing: Consciousness. Atheism is predicated on nothing known.

~
HypnoPsi

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The original authors explain things much better than I do. Now, can you name a single researcher who has experimental evidence as opposed to theoretical beliefs that consciousness is nothing more than the result of cellular computation?
You're asking us to prove that there is not something involved in consciousness over and above brain function? Are you also asking us to prove that there is not something involved in evolution over and above biology, or that there is not something involved in the weather over and above meteorological events?

Not possible. But why would you assume there is, when there is no evidence in favor of the idea?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Theism: The view that the Universe and Natural Laws are best explained by a supreme conscious thinker and that some property or substance that inherently supplies itself with the necessities of maintaining it's own existence is superfluous.
Uh, you better think this out a little more. Clearly the SCT supplies itself with the necessities of maintaining its own existence.

~~ Paul

[HypnoPsi]

Because your arguments for why a God-mind is more parsimonious than alternatives are biased by the fact that you want to know more about NDE's and mediums, which will only happen if everyone agrees that God-mind is a more pasimonious view.


Utterly wrong. Even the Buddhist ideas of a totally "self-less" Nirvana are absolutely fine with me - in fact, I think several aspects of that view have much more going for them than certain traditionally western views of God.

Your motive for generating the arguments you present on this thread is not, as you claim, to come up with a better explanation for existence. It is to reconcile the objective world with your desire for NDEs, mediums, psi, and any other supernatural stuff to be real.


Now you claim to be reading my mind... I see "God" and psi, etc., as entirely different things.

Again, I would not be troubled in the slightest if "God" turned out to be a non-entity in terms of the single conscious being of western thought.

~
HypnoPsi

[paximperium]

Thanks for showing off how blantantly moronic and dishonest your arguments are. Must be nice making up your little straw figurines and attacking those while ignoring reality itself.
Agnosticism: The view that even though the Universe and Natural Laws clearly exist one does not know how they exist.
Agreed

Theism: The view that the Universe and Natural Laws are best explained by a supreme conscious thinker and that some property or substance that inherently supplies itself with the necessities of maintaining it's own existence is superfluous.Really? Your Special Pleading is weak young grasshopper.
So how does your imaginary SCT maintains itself?
Let me replace your little semantic garbage SCT with Natural Laws. Yup, fits just as well. I must be a theist then :rolleyes:

Atheism The view that the Universe and Natural Laws are best explained as self-sustaining and that a supreme conscious thinker is superfluous.I call you a liar. Atheism is predicated on intellectual honesty in stating to oneself that there are question that is still unknown and that we don't make up bullcrap answers based on lies. We reject a supreme conciousness due to lack of evidence while keeping an open mind and keep looking for an answer.

Theism is predicated on a known thing: Consciousness. Nope. Theism is predicated on making an unevidenced vague claim that seems logical and then secretly dumping a whole lot of useless magical mythic crap into the original claim and pretending no one notices the dishonesty.
Keep making this claim. Maybe it'll magically come true if you keep repeating that lie. Maybe if you keep pretending that your semantic "conciousness" is accepted that you can secretly sneak int Jesus and YHWH into the equation.

Atheism is predicated on nothing known.Nope. Atheism is predicated on rejecting unevidence garbage claims from woo-mongerers so that we can keep looking for answers.

Here is the proper definitions:
Agnosticism: View that the ultimate truth can never be known.
Theist: God is the ultimately truth.
Atheist: Rejection of the theist claim.

Agnostic Atheist/Materialist: Ultimate truth can never be known and we reject the theistic claim.

Thanks for playing

[HypnoPsi]

Only because you make the same mistake a materialist makes, you assume that you know what 'consciousness' is, just as a materialist assumes they know what 'matter' is.


I do not presume to have even the slightest idea what consciousness is.

I state in all serious, i can not prove that i am not a p-zombie. I exhibit all the behaviors of consciousness, but i can not prove that I am conscious.


So? I can't prove I'm conscious to anyone else either. All I know is that for me as a conscious being with no knowledge of any self-sustaining information or substance that another consciousness is the most parsimonious solution to existence.


A self sustaining god and a self sustaining set of energy is pretty equal in terms of parsimony.


I have no idea if the God-thinker is self-sustaining or everlasting. All I know is that the God-thinker is predicated on the personal thinker and the self-sustaining energy is based on nothing.

You are just assuming that you are conscious, just as a materialist assumes that they are material.


This has to be one of the silliest things I've ever read.

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

No, not really
'"I" that is aware of it's own existence as a conscious being ' is a behavior, whatever you choose to define that 'I' as. It is a set of behaviors in phenomena, matter or godthink.


I don't see "I" as a behaviour or any reason why I should.


So if the p-zombie is defined as exhibiting 'all behaviors of consciousness' this includes the 'private' behaviors as well.


Why? Are you saying here that you believe objective observation can lead to your knowing something is conscious?

Really, just stop and think about it. How can a p-zombie prove that it is a p-zombie? Or not?


I couldn't care less. This is all your stuff that you need to figure out.

~
HypnoPsi

[PixyMisa]

I disagree entirely. Psi is extra sensory and I see no reason it's down to EM fields.
Why not, though?

I mean, we can't detect the EM fields associated with psi, but we can't detect the psi itself. So why can't the nonexistent psi be explained by nonexistent EM fields?

And by the exact same logic, Dennett's thermostat "behaviour" can be reduced to "thoughts" about 'too hot', 'too cold' and 'just right'.
Sure.

The problem is that description is not the same thing as reality.
No, it's not; it's a description of reality.

As I said earlier, I don't consider Dennett's thermostat to be conscious, merely aware. It builds descriptions of reality; that's what awareness is.

Building descriptions of oneself, self-awareness, that's what consciousness is. That's Descartes' cogito.

If you're creative enough, phenomenal objects can be described in terms of earth, air, fire and water. Still doesn't make it true. The computational theory of consciousness is a similar type of creative fiction.
No.

The computational theory of consciousness is sufficient to explain all observed aspects of consciousness, based on the observed behaviour of the brain. It makes a minimum of assumptions, while providing a maximum of explicatory power and without leading us astray with assertions of nonexistent phenomena.

Your... argument... fails here in every way it is possible to fail.

The original authors explain things much better than I do. Now, can you name a single researcher who has experimental evidence as opposed to theoretical beliefs that consciousness is nothing more than the result of cellular computation?
You mean like Koch and Ramachandran?

Oh, and there's no such thing as "theoretical beliefs". There are beliefs, and there are theories. The computational theory of consciousness is a theory, like it says on the label.

[HypnoPsi]

You just said the following:

P1. There is no evidence for any self-sustaining entities.

P2. There is evidence for human consciousness.

C1. Therefore there is evidence for self-sustaining universal consciousness.


1 and 2 are fine but I've never said there is evidence for a self-sustaining universal consciousness. I have no knowledge either way.

You theorize that he has memory, that he can sustain the universe, that the universal consciousness can be individuated.


No, I do not theorise that God has memory. Again, for all I know God might have just thought up the laws that are the Universe and individual consciousness and never looked back or even be aware of it in any self-conscious sense.

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

You're asking us to prove that there is not something involved in consciousness over and above brain function?


No, I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking you "can you name a single researcher who has experimental evidence as opposed to theoretical beliefs that consciousness is nothing more than the result of cellular computation?"

Are you also asking us to prove that there is not something involved in evolution over and above biology, or that there is not something involved in the weather over and above meteorological events?


If you can provide evidence that the Universe is self-sustaining then you would falsify the God theory.

The fact that this is not possible in practice though logically sound in principle makes things hard both ways.

But again, I've only argued that God is more parsimonious than information or matter being self-sustaining since God is predicated on consciousness and self-sustaining information/matter isn't predicated on anything.

I'm not saying the solution is perfect or that it solves all problems and leaves nothing unanswered. I agree it doesn't and that it isn't perfect. It is just that God is more parsimonious.

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Thanks for showing off how blantantly moronic and dishonest your arguments are.


This here is the basic reason why I very rarely pay much attention to your posts.

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
I disagree entirely. Psi is extra sensory and I see no reason it's down to EM fields.Why not, though?


Show me evidence for it and I'll believe it.


I mean, we can't detect the EM fields associated with psi, but we can't detect the psi itself. So why can't the nonexistent psi be explained by nonexistent EM fields?


Show me how you have conclusively falsified work like the Ganzfeld and Staring experiments and I'll believe you.

Now, can you name a single researcher who has experimental evidence as opposed to theoretical beliefs that consciousness is nothing more than the result of cellular computation?You mean like Koch and Ramachandran?


Please provide your experimental evidence that computation - toaster ovens or brain cells - produce subjective experience.

~
HypnoPsi

[paximperium]

This here is the basic reason why I very rarely pay much attention to your posts.

~
HypnoPsi
Does it look like I care? I have zero interest in changing your mind. After reading your garbage for a few pages, it was pretty clear you're as dishonest as DOC, Radrook or Plumjam.

I have an agenda of showing how completely and utterly moronic and dishonest your arguments are. Put me on ignore for all I care. It'll just show how silly you are by repeating each and every dismantled argument. The lurkers can see all your garbage torn apart as you ignore me and keep spouting your garbage....well, maybe it may not make a difference since you seem to keep doing that anyway.

[PixyMisa]

I do not presume to have even the slightest idea what consciousness is.
Ah. Indeed.

Well, it's a wise man who knows what he does not know.

Start with Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach, then proceed with Wolfe's MIT Introduction to Psychology lecture series. Then once you have some idea of the subject you have been arguing about for a dozen pages, we can continue.

So? I can't prove I'm conscious to anyone else either. All I know is that for me as a conscious being with no knowledge of any self-sustaining information or substance that another consciousness is the most parsimonious solution to existence.
No, you do not know that. You claim that. It is false.

[PixyMisa]

Show me evidence for it and I'll believe it.
I presented the evidence. Looks pretty conclusive to me.

Psi doesn't exist. EM fields relating to psi don't exist.

Perfect correlation.

Show me how you have conclusively falsified work like the Ganzfeld and Staring experiments and I'll believe you.
That's been hashed over ad nauseam in this forum, and on the science forum, and on the general skepticism forum as well. In any case, that's not how it works. You are putting forward a claim; you have to put forward the supporting evidence.

But tell you what: Pick a study you think is valid, and I'll show you why it's worthless tripe. Just one to start with. Once that's dealt with, I'll let you pick another. And so on.

Please provide your experimental evidence that computation - toaster ovens or brain cells - produce subjective experience.
What is subjective experience?

There's an aspect of memory to it, I'm sure you'll agree. Toasters can remember stuff.

There's an aspect of perception to it - direct or indirect. Toasters can peceive stuff.

There's an aspect of reasoning to it. Toasters can reason.

If those are all the aspects of subjective experience, we can safely conclude that toasters have them.

If you want to propose that there are additional aspects to subjective experience, then tell me what you think they are.

[PixyMisa]

I don't see "I" as a behaviour or any reason why I should.
Then the ball's in your court. It's not a behaviour, you say? Well, what is it then?

Why? Are you saying here that you believe objective observation can lead to your knowing something is conscious?Yup.

Decarte's cogito. If something - another human, a toaster, a slime mold from 61 Cygni - can reason it's way through cogito, and show its work, on what basis can we deny its self-awareness?