WWW Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 I would not consider myself an atheist. I would more so consider myself to be in the theist camp, but I don't necessarily believe in "God" per se. The concept of consciousness is what has held me back from completely dismissing a creative/destructive sentient energy that is inherently present within our physical reality as a driving force for existence. This forum is notorious for having some of the most rationally inclined minds on the internet, so should make for some interesting discussion.Very briefly, my current perception of reality stems from a conscious force that is present within all of physical existence. Visualize a large fire. Every individual physical form is comprised of a spark from that fire. Free will exists only as a whole rather than on an individual level. Sacred geometry, evolution, etc. are the fundamental laws or principles fabricated by consciousness that set in motion our physical reality. Something from nothing. The chicken and the egg conundrum.Anyway, if any of you have measurable evidence as to the composition of consciousness that would be great. Although, I would be content with theoretical explanations if such evidence does not exist or has yet to have been ascertained.
Wesley Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Do you understand the idea of emergent properties? Aka, I have a processor, graphics card, hard drive, etc which none of them make a usable computer. However, I take them and put them together and gain an emergent property of physical and real things that is a computer. This analogy/theory explains how consciousness could arise as an emergent property out of a human physical form, but that if I removed the blood or brain or heart then it would no longer function. I think you have the burden of proof to prove that consciousness is something that is supernatural, not the other way around.
ParaSait Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 I always found the word "consciousness" a bit vague, but I'd define it as the awareness of things that exist in reality. So what's fundamentally required for consciousness is the senses and a processing unit (the mind) that creates an awareness of what is sensed. Neither of these has to be anything supernatural and it is in fact possible to show how these processes can work with pure physical material. Now, you can say "but if I make a robot with sensors and an AI, that robot's still not conscious". Well, that really depends. Again, "consciousness" is IMO a bit vague, and you can subjectively judge that a robot isn't conscious, but I'd be inclined to say that you're only thinking that because can't empathize with an object that has a more simple form of consciousness than yours, so it doesn't feel like it's "truly" conscious. But then you can ask yourself the question: what exactly is "true" consciousness, anyway?
WWW Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 I do understand the idea of emergent properties, and this certainly would explain the thought processing capabilities of the human brain. Unfortunately it still does not explain what consciousness is (self contemplation, free will, awareness, realization, etc.).My intention is not to prove or disprove my beliefs, only to better understand yours.According to the emergent properties notion, a collection of human beings would have the potential of creating a collective mind. How would you describe this collective mind?
cynicist Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Wow, seems like a lot of new posters have joined the boards recently. Welcome! Anyway, if any of you have measurable evidence as to the composition of consciousness that would be great. Although, I would be content with theoretical explanations if such evidence does not exist or has yet to have been ascertained. Well so far we don't have a good understanding of how consciousness is possible, but we do know empirically that it requires physical form in terms of matter, since there is no evidence otherwise. (and all forms of consciousness that are observable cease to exist once the life of the organism has ended) Consciousness itself is an organism with awareness (the ability to think or feel, perceive ones surroundings), as opposed to something like a bacteria or plant.
Wesley Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Well I am not sure it could be described as a "thing" as it wouldn't exist. However there are many inventions, memes, and ideas that occur ow develop from multiple people interacting that no one person could come up with. This emergent property would still have the original human and physical form of seveeral bodies and computers that comprise it and would not be autonomous in any sense, and thus would still be an emergent property of physical things and people.
WWW Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 I am not at all against the idea that artificial intelligence can manifest conscious energy. Technology in general is an extension of the human mind. It is derived from the same physical materials from the earth as is our human bodies. Technological advancement, as I see it, is simply a process of evolution. Transhumanism could very well be the next step in evolution for mankind.
ParaSait Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 According to the emergent properties notion, a collection of human beings would have the potential of creating a collective mind. How would you describe this collective mind? I wouldn't leap to the notion that many individual minds = automatically a big collective mind. That's only kind of a applicable to ants, because ants just function for the purpose forming a hive mind. But it's not the case for human beings. There are other emergent properties however. Think for example about the laws and properties of the market and other kinds of social effects.
Wesley Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 I am not at all against the idea that artificial intelligence can manifest conscious energy. Technology in general is an extension of the human mind. It is derived from the same physical materials from the earth as is our human bodies. Technological advancement, as I see it, is simply a process of evolution. Transhumanism could very well be the next step in evolution for mankind. Transhumanism in most ways as described by the original transhumanists is already here. It is hard to say in many ways that modern humans would not be considered gods if their bodies (augmented with a variety of technologies that allow them to communicate with anyone in the whole world instantly, know any fact that has ever been discovered, or fly) were transported back a few decades, let alone hundreds of years and compared to what we thought of then as humans. This still doesn't mean that consciousness can transcend physical form. Even in theoretical artifical intelligence theories, that consciousness still has a physical form, it iss just able to achieve more and be more amazing than was previously thought possible.
ParaSait Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Walker, I'm just wondering, do you believe that this conscious force is absolutely necessary for consciousness to exist, or do you believe that that's just how it happens to work in reality? And why would you think so (in either of these cases).
WWW Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 If we are unsure as to the characteristics, composition, attributes, etc., if any, then we certainly cannot declare that it can only be contained in human beings, animals, organisms capable of feeling pain, etc. solely based on our preconceived notion of conscious energy. I'm not sure if this is a valid analogy, but electricity is certainly present all throughout the universe; as is gravity, magnetism, etc. Also, how do you insert quotes from other users? Parasait,Honestly, I'm not sure which is why I came here.
Wesley Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 In the bottom right of posts, there is a Quote button and a MultiQuote button (for multiple users). I never said that it was only humans or only things that can feel pain. I said that it must have physical origins and then emerge from things that can be proven to exist. There is no abstract "consciousness energy" that exists outside of physicality into a supernatural realm.
cynicist Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 If we are unsure as to the characteristics, composition, attributes, etc., if any, then we certainly cannot declare that it can only be contained in human beings, animals, organisms capable of feeling pain, etc. solely based on our preconceived notion of conscious energy. I'm not sure if this is a valid analogy, but electricity is certainly present all throughout the universe; as is gravity, magnetism, etc. Well consciousness is not like a physical organ. We aren't currently able to map it to something specific in the brain. It's just a characteristic that is present in some organisms and not in others, and we're aware of this based on the capability of the organism. So a mouse for example is aware of its own existence, feels pain, reacts to its environment and also can comprehend events to some degree. (like distinguishing between potential threats and harmless objects) Let me ask you something, how do you define 'conscious energy' or 'consciousness' (no need to be complete, a description of characteristics is fine) in order to determine whether it is present or not? How do you separate it from other things in the universe?
Wuzzums Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Anyway, if any of you have measurable evidence as to the composition of consciousness that would be great. It's a process. I do not have any measurable evidence as to the composition of consciousness, neither do I have any measurable evidence as to the composition of logic. However all I do know is that they are both products of the brain. I cannot really define consciousness but your theory that there's a consciousness that encompasses human consciousness has some implications. It implies that consciousness can be created by more consciousness, which results that our own consciousness is created by an amalgamation of other consciousnesses, and so on ad infinitum. Turtles all the way down. Doesn't really lead to a deeper understanding as to what consciousness is. Artificial intelligence science has gotten to the point where it can create intelligent programs which have no consciousness. This puts forth the question why consciousness exists in the first place if it's not required to create intelligence. There's this metaphor that I thought useful. The brain is like an orchestra that creates its own conductor (i.e. the consciousness). The conductor cannot function without the orchestra, but the orchestra still functions like an orchestra whether there's a conductor or not. So in this sense, I don't think there can be no higher plane of consciousness than our own, you cannot have an orchestra made only of conductors.
WWW Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 For some reason my quote button isn't working.Wesley, my response pertaining to only humans and animals containing conscious energy was directed more towards Cynicist (sorry for the misunderstanding). I am not sure why you continue to refer to supernatural realms as if it was something that I have proposed, but I can certainly understand how you may have come to that conclusion. I am not 100% convinced if consciousness requires physical form or if it is physical form that requires conscious energy (again back to the chicken and egg paradox). Cynicist, How can we prove that a rock or a plant is not conscious or does not have measurable conscious energy if we cannot measure or even truly understand what consciousness is? Clearly there are various levels of conscious beings which leads me to assume that there is a measurable energy of some sort. If this energy exists in some things, why would it not be present in others? Universalize the principle. My definition of consciousness would be an emanating energy or force inherently present in our entire physical reality in various degrees of magnitude that controls or guides the creative/destructive forces of the universe (multi-verse, multidimension, etc. included).
Kevin Beal Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 First we have to have at least some kind of definition. What do we know for certain? Consciousness is the state that the brain is in that we think of when we wake up from a dreamless sleep, all the way until we fall asleep the next night. It's dependent on brains. No brain, no consciousness. If you experiment with the brain, you can affect consciousness. Without a definition, then consciousness means whatever you want it to mean. A statement like "this rock is conscious" becomes meaningless and any debate about it's nature is just going to go nowhere. Consciousness describes unconscious brain activity that reaches a certain threshold of excitement. You can picture all the regions of the brain like a mountain range and all the tallest peaks are what you are conscious of. More on that here. The contents of consciousness are what we think of as waking life. All the sensations, pains, thoughts, desires, etc. The basis for most of the work in contemporary philosophy of mind has been to address philosophical dualism, which was popularized by René Descartes. The supposed problem is how you account for the subjective nature of consciousness in a world of objects which have an objective mode of existence. Mystics tend to take the route of making consciousness real, but rocks and trees unreal. Like Deepak Chopra who says that we all collectively create reality together in relationship with each other. Materialists tend to take the approach of saying that consciousness is just an illusion of some sort and nothing exists subjectively, or if it does, it's not the realm of science. Or, we can just say that consciousness is just as natural and real and biological as digestion or mitosis, which obviously it is. Consciousness has to be causal in some sense, or else my experience of having ideas motivate me to action is illusory. In order for it to be real, the idea had to cause me to take the action. The temptation of many people is to propose something called "epiphenomenalism" which basically says that consciousness is simply experienced and does not itself do anything. It's like a TV show playing. It's just static. People rationalize this by saying that the brain is an antenna that receives consciousness. I don't blame you for not understanding what consciousness is, because even professional philosophers say the most insane things about it. John Searle, on the other hand, is awesome:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqDgt12m26c
cynicist Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 How can we prove that a rock or a plant is not conscious or does not have measurable conscious energy if we cannot measure or even truly understand what consciousness is? Clearly there are various levels of conscious beings which leads me to assume that there is a measurable energy of some sort. If this energy exists in some things, why would it not be present in others? Universalize the principle. My definition of consciousness would be an emanating energy or force inherently present in our entire physical reality in various degrees of magnitude that controls or guides the creative/destructive forces of the universe (multi-verse, multidimension, etc. included). Well we do understand what type of behavior indicates consciousness, and while we can't measure it directly in the form of neuronal activity, that is not necessary to determine what can or cannot be conscious. One obvious requirement is the brain, due to the complexity involved in emotions/sensations/thoughts, so that rules out rocks and plants. The issue I have with your definition is that it is so broad that it includes almost everything. Fire releases energy in the form of heat and is a creative/destructive force, yet is it conscious?
dsayers Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 My intention is not to prove or disprove my beliefs, only to better understand yours. What people believe in is highly irrelevant. If I believed unicorns were made out of ice cream, it wouldn't mean anything. Belief is temporary. You believe something and then you seek out whether it is true or not. At which point it becomes knowledge or is discarded as not accurately describing the real world. @Wesley: I don't think computers are a valid example of an emergent property. They are the sum of their parts and are reducible.
WWW Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 Kevin, Thank you for the links, I will watch the videos as soon as I have time.You have described consciousness as it pertains to individual brains both in humans and in animals, but you have left out your interpretation or understanding of the collective mind, which is a phenomenon that occurs in bee hives, ant colonies, birds, fish, and even humans. Clearly this conscious energy escapes our 5 senses and is something that has yet to be measured or even understood. Since there is evidence that consciousness exists both in individual organisms as well as collectively, could it not be plausible to suggest that consciousness itself can be present in varying degrees outside of complex organisms similar to electricity, gravity, magnetism etc. that is responsible for the very nature of existence? It allots human beings free will, or the perception of free will allowing us to respond to our environment in both a destructive or creative manner. I understand how consciousness works, but I still have yet to hear a logical argument as to what it is. Again, thank you for your response as well as the links that you have provided. I will look more into them ASAP. dsayers, Since there is no evidence as to the composition or definition of consciousness, all thoughts, perceptions, ideologies related to it would be considered beliefs including yours. This is more or less a theoretical argument with some evidence as opposed to an entirely logical argument based solely on factual evidence. Thank you for your response, but I would like to hear more about your opinion pertaining to the posted topic rather than your perception of belief.
cynicist Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 but you have left out your interpretation or understanding of the collective mind, which is a phenomenon that occurs in bee hives, ant colonies, birds, fish, and even humans. Clearly this conscious energy escapes our 5 senses and is something that has yet to be measured or even understood. Actually bees communicate with other bees through what is called the 'Waggle dance', which certainly involves the senses, while ants use chemical signals called 'pheromones'. The idea of a collective consciousness is just a way of describing shared thoughts or beliefs within a human society, which is a highly misleading way to label the social phenomenon. If there is evidence for consciousness existing outside the constraints of the brain we have not seen it yet.
WWW Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 Cynicist, I'm not sure I entirely agree that consciousness requires a brain. Again, since we cannot measure consciousness there is no way of really knowing whether or not it is universally present or if it is a rare phenomenon found only in complex organisms. I would say yes fire, as well as all matter in existence, is comprised of varying degrees of conscious energy. But again, until it is measurable there is no way to know for sure, which leaves us with speculation.. Unfortunately.
ParaSait Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Okay, just got home from work, so I'll just write my whole view on this now. There is no real objective definition of "consciousness". No, I'm not saying merely that we haven't figured out the definition, I'm saying that this whole consciousness thing does not actually exist. There is no fundamental difference between a human being and the simplest stateless reflex actor. So then why do we have this concept of consciousness? We fail to define it, yet we all seem to intuitively "get" what it is. The magic keyword here, is empathy. We, as beings that are capable of empathizing, are inclined to feel that things we believe process their senses in the same way we do, are somehow different from other kinds of materials and organisms. We feel this difference because empathy makes us profoundly change the way our brain reacts to it. This is why we care so much about whether or not an object is conscious. If we believe that an object is conscious (i.e., processing senses in much the same way we do), empathy makes us mirror the what we perceive are the feelings of that object. So, if we're speaking in a purely rational, objective sense, I see consciousness as a completely meaningless word. There is no property that actually exists in reality that makes the difference between "conscious" and "not conscious". If we accept this fact, it also makes sense why people have a tendency to mysticize consciousness. If there's an idea that we all intuitively "get", but is outside the grasp of rational clarification, we tend to ascribe it to the supernatural. This goes for consciousness as well as ethics (except those rare ethical theories like UPB -- ha!). Sorry if this sounds confusing. This post sounded so much clearer in my head, dangit. Feel free to ask me for clarifications or challenge my view.
WWW Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 Cynicist, There are actually various studies that suggest humans have the ability to communicate over vast distances especially during times of distress. Check out the Global Consciousness Project established by Princeton University (I apologize, for some reason I cannot insert links or quotes, so you'll have to Google it). There has also been studies that suggest monkeys have the same ability, but in varying degrees of effectiveness. As for ants and bees, they certainly do communicate physically. I would maintain that the same is true just on a much smaller scale. Parasait, Very interesting proposition, thank you for your response! I would contend that empathy is our brain's cognitive ability to perceive varying degrees of consciousness, much like our nose can only perceive a limited range of smells, our brains can only perceive a limited spectrum of conscious energy (Again this is mere theoretical postulation). I will definitely further contemplate your response though, thanks again. Spiritual Guru, Only time coupled with our ever-changing understanding of reality will we know for sure.
WWW Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 Wazzums, I like your orchestra/conductor analogy, but it seems contradictory. If the orchestra (intelligence) creates it's own conductor (consciousness), but it is the conductor that decides to create artificial intelligence (other orchestras), then how is it that the conductor cannot function without the orchestra when it is the orchestra that needs the conductor to create it. Back to the chicken and the egg conundrum..
TheRobin Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Walker, given your theory about conciousness energy: How could we theoretically be able to measure that a stone has conciousness or not? (Assuming all the recources you need are at your fingertips)
WWW Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 TheRobin, Great question, unfortunately I do not have a definite answer for it. Although, Princeton University has demonstrated the ability of the collective mind to effect "meaningful correlations" during times of pervasive distress within random number generators through what they call the Global Consciousness Project.
TheRobin Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 You mean this here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Consciousness_Project There seems to be quite some ciritcism in regards to their methodology "Skeptics such as Robert T. Carroll, Claus Larsen, and others have questioned the methodology of the Global Consciousness Project, particularly how the data are selected and interpreted,[3][4] saying the data anomalies reported by the project are the result of "pattern matching" and selection bias which ultimately fail to support a belief in psi or global consciousness.[5] Other critics, stated that the open access to the test data "is a testimony to the integrity and curiosity of those involved," but in analysing the studies, May et al. stated that they found only chance derivations throughout.[6]""Independent scientists Edwin May and James Spottiswoode conducted an analysis of the data around the 11 September 2001 events and concluded there was no statistically significant change in the randomness of the GCP data during the attacks and the apparent significant deviation reported by Nelson and Radin existed only in their chosen time window.[20] Spikes and fluctuations are to be expected in any random distribution of data, and there is no set time frame for how close a spike has to be to a given event for the GCP to say they have found a correlation.[20] Wolcotte Smith said "A couple of additional statistical adjustments would have to be made to determine if there really was a spike in the numbers," referencing the data related to September 11, 2001.[21] Similarly, Jeffrey D. Scargle believes unless both Bayesian and classical p-value analysis agree and both show the same anomalous effects, the kind of result GCP proposes will not be generally accepted.[22]" But the main reason I brought up the question is that, IF you don't accept that conciousness is an effect of brains (which is a claim you can measure once you find out what exactly correlates to degrees of conciousness) then it becomes this non-material thing that is neither matter, nor effects of matter (i.e. energy), so you'd have to introduce a whole new substance, that although it affected matter wouldn't be measurable or detectable by it. (but then it's at a stage where it both has and doesn't have an effect on matter, which also makes no sense)
WWW Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 TheRobin, Criticism does tend to compliment controversial research. Feel free to analyze their findings yourself and come up with your own extrapolations. It certainly isn't an accurate means of measuring consciousness, but it definitely is an interesting study to say the least. Thank you for your findings, and please keep me updated if you happen to come up with anything more.I agree, it is a pretty intense topic to contemplate.
spiritualguru Posted May 3, 2014 Posted May 3, 2014 If consciousness is an emergent property, how do people have near death experiences? How do people astral travel? Have out of the body experiences where they can see things in other places away from their body? A woman had all the blood drained from her brain in a surgery and had a near death experience where she left her body, how is that possible? Isn't it a bit unwise to just label all these experiences as "delusion" or "hallucinations" because it doesn't fit into your model of reality?
WWW Posted May 3, 2014 Author Posted May 3, 2014 Interesting questions, thank you for your response. Consciousness or conscious energy (according to my current understanding/opinion//belief) is intrinsically present throughout all of reality and is perceived by our minds/senses as merely being an emergent property of the brain due to our limited spectrum of perception. The phenomena which you are describing can not be explained rationally or logically, and is generally only experienced through inexplicable or varying degrees/states of consciousness. Since we do not fundamentally understand consciousness, we cannot make presumptions as to the explanation or interpretation of the phenomena in which you are describing. It could very well be that we are taking the wrong approach when attempting to ascertain or uncover the true nature of consciousness, but only in time will we come to a better understanding.
Kevin Beal Posted May 3, 2014 Posted May 3, 2014 If consciousness is an emergent property, how do people have near death experiences? How do people astral travel? Have out of the body experiences where they can see things in other places away from their body? A woman had all the blood drained from her brain in a surgery and had a near death experience where she left her body, how is that possible? Isn't it a bit unwise to just label all these experiences as "delusion" or "hallucinations" because it doesn't fit into your model of reality? Actually, yes. We should dismiss these self contradictory explanations for our experiences. We don't change our map of the moon simply because a person visited the moon in their minds and said Mons Huygens is actually a valley rather than a mountain. We wouldn't change our model of consciousness on such flimsy and self contradicting evidence either. People claim to have experienced OBE's, NDE's, "collective consciousness" and all of this stuff, and there certainly are a lot of unexplained phenomena surrounding consciousness. But in any new area of exploration, you always start with what you know for sure. What we know for sure is that consciousness has only ever been observed in certain animals. Animals with a certain kind of nervous system and brain systems. We know that consciousness can be altered by altering the brain, creating pains and even desires through manipulation of the brain. We know that particular kinds of thoughts and feelings trigger particular regions of the brain to actively pass chemical and electrical signals. There are no known exceptions to me. We don't know how this other stuff works, but to dismiss what we do know in favor of what we don't, is obviously just willful ignorance. No one goes adventuring with a map only to ignore all of it's instructions. Obviously they aren't trying to reach the destination. And it's pretty damn convenient that all of this somehow justifies the existence of a god in your mind, Walker. Well, maybe that's the point and actually none of this is sincere interest in the topic of consciousness. I mean, you could find all the evidence you need to conclude consciousness is a brain-based phenomena in a matter of seconds. But you've demonstrated that you aren't interested in that. What you're interested in is trolling people to keep your own doubts at bay. You could have an actual conversation about your ambivalence with your "god" if you want to. But don't pretend that it's about consciousness when it's not.
WWW Posted May 3, 2014 Author Posted May 3, 2014 I can assure you Kevin, that "trolling" and "justifying the existence of god" are not my intentions. To refrain from inevitable degrees of cognitive dissonance when discussing such issues, I try to avoid subjugating myself to certain labels (atheist, theist, anarchist, statist, etc.), but occasionally use them in introductory statements to aid in efficient conversation. I clearly stated earlier in the topic that my intentions were to theoretically discuss the nature of consciousness as opposed to making an argument for its composition or essence. I am only interested in truth. In order to come closer to absolute truth it is imperative that we occasionally venture into the unknown, which from what I've gathered, is the essence of Philosophy. On a side note, the video links that you provided earlier in the discussion were excellent and appreciated. If you find anything more related to the topic feel free to send me a link.
Recommended Posts