AustinJames Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Douglas Hofstadter's book "Gödel, Escher, Bach" may be an interesting read for anyone contemplating the process by which meaningless independent axioms can combine to produce self-reference. I struggled for an hour to summarize the book, but apparently need to read it again, because I resorted to Wikipedia for an overarching summary. Wiki says "Through illustration and analysis, the book discusses how self-reference and formal rules allow systems to acquire meaning despite being made of "meaningless" elements. It also discusses what it means to communicate, how knowledge can be represented and stored, the methods and limitations of symbolic representation, and even the fundamental notion of "meaning" itself. In response to confusion over the book's theme, Hofstadter has emphasized that GEB is not about mathematics, art, and music but rather about how cognition and thinking emerge from well-hidden neurological mechanisms. In the book, he presents an analogy about how the individual neurons of the brain coordinate to create a unified sense of a coherent mind by comparing it to the social organization displayed in colony of ants." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWW Posted May 4, 2014 Author Share Posted May 4, 2014 AustinJames, The book sounds very interesting, I will definitely look more into it. Thank you for the reference! You stated that you struggled in your ability to summarize what you have read which is understandable given the topic at hand. Do you have any thoughts as to what you think consciousness is from your personal understanding of the concept that you have gathered from other sources? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cynicist Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 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. No they have not. There is zero evidence that what they are studying has anything to do with a 'global consciousness'. Seems to me like they are mistaking a construct within our minds for something external, and until they can clearly define what a 'global consciousness' is, much less provide any evidence of its existence, that project is just going to be a giant waste of resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWW Posted May 4, 2014 Author Share Posted May 4, 2014 cynicist, Fair assessment. Given the amount of data that the project has generated over the last 15 or so years, what correlation would there be between the unusual activity of the RNGs and the significant events that occurred within the same timeframe? Assuming that you have already analyzed the data, what conclusions can you make about this correlation? Coincidence, or unexplainable evidence completely unrelated to consciousness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cynicist Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 I just glanced at it and even they admit no significant correlations, but that's not important. What's important is that they haven't defined what they are testing for, and without that their tests cannot be valid proof of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWW Posted May 4, 2014 Author Share Posted May 4, 2014 I appreciate you taking the time to at least glance at the reference that I have provided before completely dismissing the results. There seems to be correlations between the unusual activity of the RNGs and the significant events that have occurred within the same timeframe, but what exactly the correlations represent is still not conclusive. If you find any other interesting projects, articles, research, etc. pertaining to consciousness in general that you find worthwhile, please send me a link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiritualguru Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 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. How can you dismiss other peoples experience? Lol, everything is based on experience. Even science itself is based on peoples EXPERIENCE of looking through a microscope or doing tests and then documenting that experience. How can you believe it unless you go experience it for yourself? Go have an NDE go have an out of body experience, go take a psychedelic, go have a transcendental experience. Then come back here and dismiss God. You're just taking everything that doesn't fit into your model of reality and then dismissing it. If there is many people having experiences of these things you should know it's just not all delusion and if you think it's all delusions then I feel sorry for the extremely small boxed in world you live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 How can you dismiss other peoples experience? Lol, everything is based on experience. Even science itself is based on peoples EXPERIENCE of looking through a microscope or doing tests and then documenting that experience. How can you believe it unless you go experience it for yourself? Go have an NDE go have an out of body experience, go take a psychedelic, go have a transcendental experience. Then come back here and dismiss God. You're just taking everything that doesn't fit into your model of reality and then dismissing it. If there is many people having experiences of these things you should know it's just not all delusion and if you think it's all delusions then I feel sorry for the extremely small boxed in world you live in. Okay. I've had an OBE before. I've taken several psychedelic drugs. I've had all sorts of profound experiences. I know exactly what you are talking about. By your logic, I now have authority on this subject and can tell you that you are wrong. I am not dismissing an experience. I'm dismissing an explanation for the experience. I experienced going to Jupiter in a dream I had, but I don't say to people that I actually went to jupiter. People saying that they experienced astral travel and therefore they actually went to a space between worlds. No, they just experienced things as if they had gone to a place between worlds. What I have a problem with is people jumping to irrational conclusions, often because it makes them feel special. I would love to be able to say sincerely that I actually went to Jupiter. What an amazing thing that would be. But I subject my thinking to rational standards and I cannot justify making such a claim, especially given the clear contradiction in saying that minds exist independently of bodies. The fact that your prescription is hallucinogenic drugs in order to get closer to knowing reality is very telling. Reality is the opposite of reality. Humility is the opposite of humility. Not that I don't value some of the experiences and thoughts I had while on psychedelics, but to portray it as if it's a tool to find greater truth is such an obviously silly thing, that not to mention that it actually distorts your perception of the world is just to prefer not to subject your beliefs to rational standards, willful ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiritualguru Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Okay. I've had an OBE before. I've taken several psychedelic drugs. I've had all sorts of profound experiences. I know exactly what you are talking about. By your logic, I now have authority on this subject and can tell you that you are wrong. I am not dismissing an experience. I'm dismissing an explanation for the experience. I experienced going to Jupiter in a dream I had, but I don't say to people that I actually went to jupiter. People saying that they experienced astral travel and therefore they actually went to a space between worlds. No, they just experienced things as if they had gone to a place between worlds. What I have a problem with is people jumping to irrational conclusions, often because it makes them feel special. I would love to be able to say sincerely that I actually went to Jupiter. What an amazing thing that would be. But I subject my thinking to rational standards and I cannot justify making such a claim, especially given the clear contradiction in saying that minds exist independently of bodies. The fact that your prescription is hallucinogenic drugs in order to get closer to knowing reality is very telling. Reality is the opposite of reality. Humility is the opposite of humility. Not that I don't value some of the experiences and thoughts I had while on psychedelics, but to portray it as if it's a tool to find greater truth is such an obviously silly thing, that not to mention that it actually distorts your perception of the world is just to prefer not to subject your beliefs to rational standards, willful ignorance. I like how you focus on the drug part when I mentioned several other things not just the drugs. Anyway, if many people have an experience of going to jupiter in the astral plane and that jupiter is the same place, why wouldn't it be considered real? There have been accounts of people both going into out of body states and then going to the exact same place and even communicating with each other. How do you explain that? And sorry to disappoint you but many people have had a god experience in their mystical states. Just because you had a few experiences and some explanations doesn't mean you get to dismiss everyone else's explanations as delusional and that's my point here. No matter what experience you have, to dismiss other peoples explanations of their own experience because you're "logical" is semi-delusional. Explanations of experience is basically all you get from those experiences unless you experience it yourself. "People saying that they experienced astral travel and therefore they actually went to a space between worlds. No, they just experienced things as if they had gone to a place between worlds. What I have a problem with is people jumping to irrational conclusions, often because it makes them feel special." Important point to make here. You're just experiencing things as if you're a human in a human body in a world made of matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 You're just experiencing things as if you're a human in a human body in a world made of matter. And therefore experiencing myself going to jupiter in a dream is just as empirical and real as my waking life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiritualguru Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 And therefore experiencing myself going to jupiter in a dream is just as empirical and real as my waking life? That's what logic says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AustinJames Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 AustinJames, The book sounds very interesting, I will definitely look more into it. Thank you for the reference! You stated that you struggled in your ability to summarize what you have read which is understandable given the topic at hand. Do you have any thoughts as to what you think consciousness is from your personal understanding of the concept that you have gathered from other sources? Google's first definition of consciousness is, "the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings." I accept this definition, but I would add that it includes the ability and desire to distinguish one's self from their surroundings. Basically, a tendency toward self-reference. We cannot prove that the universe has no consciousness, any more than we can prove that a rock has no consciousness; but if it does, it has yet to willfully provide us with evidence of such. Can anyone find a rational inconsistency with this definition? Is it incomplete or incorrect? I must admit, I have given the topic very little scrutiny. It seems to me, like the definition of god, irrelevant to the higher ambitions of my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infinite Limit Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 That's what logic says.And therefore, illusion equals reality. GG atheists.No, that's not a self-contradiction. That's what the materialists WANT you to think!Jokes aside, define logic please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devon Gibbons Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 We have to appreciate the abstractions of physics to appreciate anything at all. Nihilism and functional fixedness result from our non-ability to expand consciousness from the human perspective to a broader scope. Systems relations creates consciousness; appreciate the system, and by extension you appreciate yourself. All matter and energy in the universe is constant. Nothing can be created nor destroyed. Start getting to know these things, you have to live with them for eternity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWW Posted May 6, 2014 Author Share Posted May 6, 2014 marginalist, I enjoyed reading your post, it was pretty deep. By claiming that nihilism and functional fixedness are inherently derived from our inability to expand consciousness are you suggesting that there is an underlying or intrinsic purpose to our existence? Or are you claiming the opposite? I would contend that the expansion of our consciousness is possible through Transhumanism or artificial intelligence in general, which would likely result in a much broader understanding of the purpose of existence. Presently we view consciousness as a process of system relations, but since we don't truly understand consciousness it could very well be the case that consciousness is the prerequisite for matter or systems as opposed to the former.I'm not entirely convinced that all matter and energy in the universe is constant or that nothing can be created or destroyed, but that's topic for another discussion (No, I'm not stating that as fact, it's a mere theoretical postulation). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devon Gibbons Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 By claiming that nihilism and functional fixedness are inherently derived from our inability to expand consciousness are you suggesting that there is an underlying or intrinsic purpose to our existence? Or are you claiming the opposite? There is only purpose in what we know there is need for. We need to learn from other things, not just direct sensory experience. This is why when we define things outside ourselves as capable of consciousness, which is the truth, we can stretch our processing powers and digest reality more holistically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWW Posted May 6, 2014 Author Share Posted May 6, 2014 I agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meta Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I agree with Wesley's first answer.Consciousness is definitely an emergence of Intelligence, which to me is an emergence of Life. Life being emergence of matter and energy. Both emergences of space and time.I see it as a chain reaction. Emergence through more complexity. (This emergence system leading to concept such as Truth and Good in our psyche, it is an outstanding process, hands down to the big guy ^^ ) I can't explain NDE or stuff like that, but i prefer to tell myself that we don't really know how it works, rather than considering another "metaphysical layer".But we can be sure that we don't grasp much of the wiring behind the phenomenon. It is surely incredibly powerfull. It is the higher complexity of intelligence we know. I don't care about astral trips (no offence), conscious abstract rational reasoning is already too much for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts