- #71
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 3,401
- 3
Oops, my mistake. I see this is Philosophy, not Science.
Originally posted by Nereid
So it's a purely internal thing then? There's no way I (or Mentat, or any kookaburra, or the M87 galaxy) can (objectively) determine whether you have consciousness?
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Dennett is a philosopher. He isn't contemplating worms or paramecia, he is discussing the inner experiences of human being. He is trying to sort out and explicate these experiences and get rid of old unproductive explanations like homunculi and mantalistics. He doesn't know any more than the rest of us do what a C. Elegans experiences internally.
Originally posted by sage
referring to an earlier argument, i need to be aware of a bee sting to jerk my hand away. when a bee stings you, you first feel pain and then you jerk your hand away.
Originally posted by sage
i agree to some extent, mentat. reaction to a bee sting(or to a burnt finger) is what may be called "instinctive"- that is there exists shortcuts in neural circuitry that help us to get away from the source of pain swiftly without the intervention of the primary decision making system. but many such short cuts are learned too. swimming is one. when you begin to learn it your central information processing system is actively engaged in coordinating the arms and the limbs so that this new form of movement can be successfully accomplished. but once we have got the hang of it, swimming becomes "instinctive" in the same way reaction to pain is. a veteran swimmer is much less "aware" of how he is swimming than a newly trained rookie- the former is no longer "experiancing" swimming as he did when he first learned it.
one question. how is awareness, consciousness and sentience different from each other?
another thing. experiancing is a conscious act(i.e one needs to be conscious to experience something).
so the pain that i experience after recoiling from a bee sting is something that is possible only because we are conscious(/sentient-whatever). so an animal which is not conscious or sentient should not be able to "experiance" pain.
so do we have proof there are actually are nonsentient living beings on earth?
Originally posted by sage
mentat, i think we agree on most points about consciousness. it is a purely biological process by which an organism acquires, processes and reacts to information about its surrounding. of course the thing gets more sophisticated as we move towards more complex lifeforms. hence we have different degrees of consciousness in different animals. well that's it. p.s I'm an admirer of Dennett too.
Originally posted by Nereid
This thread is classified as Philosophy. Self Adjoint and Mentat have clarified the terminology somewhat.
If we accept the Dennett/Mentat distinctions between awareness, consciousness, and sentience, then to what extent is it possible to apply the scientific method to study non-human consciousness?
(answering his own question) Without a good means of two-way communication with non-human entities, my guess is the enterprise would be doomed to fail.
Originally posted by Nereid
This thread is classified as Philosophy. Self Adjoint and Mentat have clarified the terminology somewhat.
If we accept the Dennett/Mentat distinctions between awareness, consciousness, and sentience, then to what extent is it possible to apply the scientific method to study non-human consciousness?
(answering his own question) Without a good means of two-way communication with non-human entities, my guess is the enterprise would be doomed to fail.
Originally posted by Rader
Its clarified for those who want to see it that way but its not clarity for everyone.
Quess nobody has read Wilder Penfield "The mystery of mind"
Actual scientific investigation demonstates that the brain acts as vehicle of conscioussness of the humnan experience but is not in anyway limited to it. Conscioussness can perform functions inaccessable to the brain and the sences, on quote Wilder Penfield one of the foremost pioneers in modern investigation of the brain.
His investigation on tanatology, the study of near death experiences has termintated in corraborating his point of view that human concsiousness transends the brain. This is a eminaate scientists opinion.
Sounds like this thread is from the dark ages.
Originally posted by Mentat
Why? One eminant scientist believing in something doesn't mean there's a consensus. Einstein himself said he would never believe in the randomness of Quantum Mechanics, but it turned out that he was wrong. Besides, for every eminant scientist you can name that believes in such idealistic notions (which, btw, challenge basic principles about science, as I've discussed in previous threads - along with falling into the homunculun problem, which makes them logically flawed as well), I can probably name another, just as prominent, that disagrees (in favor of a more materialistic view).
Originally posted by Rader
Then a consenses is proof that something is true.
My point in all this is that human consciousness is ever evolving. What is true today was not yesterday and tomorrow there is a greater truth. For us to try and decribe what is human consciousness we have to use individual subjuntive and objective terms as part of the whole reality. It is a combination of both. Scientific data is not enough to describe conscioussness, there is another reality to the ultimate truth. You can not argue the fact that all scientific data is nothing more than a platform to build on.
We have only started climbing the ladder of conscious evolution. Humans are the lone entity, yet found that knows the universe is conscious of itself.
But the Universe isn't conscious of itself.
No it's not.
You could know it by being put under hypnosis and speak of specific objective realities of someone you never knew. Detailed information that only that person could possible know.
Would you not say that if a unconsciouss sentient human, could manifest to a third party conscious sentient human, objective realities that he has never had, but were of another sentient human, that this would have credibility?
You could then know something without perceiving it, as the you the perceiver and the witness can all account for the same objective fact. The how can I know that you know something, apart from verifying your perceptions with my own, can be answered by verifiying objective realities when both are in an unconscious state. Does not the objective reality come from the consciouss state and the subjective reality come from the unsconscious state?
Read Fred Allen Wolf Ph.D./physicist/ The Dreaming Universe and The Spiritual Universe for some better insight to what I am trying to explain.
Originally posted by Rader
Is in your opinion then, the materialist viewpoint is a consensus to be true? But it may not be certainly true.
Scientific data is the ojective reality from which you base all your arguments on.
The platform is what was learned yesterday. Can you not see that all objective data learned today is truer than yesterday but falser than tomorrow. Where is the true reality?, yestedays experimental proof, todays or tomorrows?
If it was conscious it would have to be in an unconsiouss state.
You could know it by being put under hypnosis and speak of specific objective realities of someone you never knew. Detailed information that only that person could possible know.
Would you not say that if a unconsciouss sentient human, could manifest to a third party conscious sentient human, objective realities that he has never had, but were of another sentient human, that this would have credibility?
Originally posted by sage
rader your hypothesis lacks scientific or experimental proof. show me one science journal(reputed of course) where such dramatic conclusions have been verified experimentally , only then i will take your hypothesis seriously.
Originally posted by Mentat
First of all, I never said that the Materialistic viewpoint was "true". "Truth" cannot be found through philosophy, logic, or science. That is not their purpose.
The "Ultimate Truth" can not be found alone by these but it is wise not to tell lies, 1 plus 1 equals 2 and apples fall. These are some of the tools for finding it. What do you use for finding it?
Secondly, Materialism is a consensus among scientists, but not necessarily among philosophers.
I agree and idealism is a consensus among some open minded scientists who do not see things as a materialist would
No, scientific data studies the objective reality.
loop di loop
What about all the long-standing theories, like Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. They weren't just "here today, gone tomorrow", they've stood the test of time and experiment for quite a long time
There great they give us the best theoretical proofs in our present day of objective reality. The human race has been here for 1 nanosecond in time, nobody uses them but us. 1,000,000 years from now these theories will be simple arithmetic. There will be a more profound understanding than that, which is what we have now, totally different.
That's a contradiction. Either it's conscious or it's in an unconscious state.
You mean like live or dead. I told that story before you ruled it out with Zero. There is enough scientific proof of dead people coming back and telling there whitetunnel stories with concrete objective evidence.
What makes you think I could do that!?
When i said you, i did not mean only you. It can be done by anyone with a conscious mind. There is scientific documentation of consciousness from outside of a individual conscious mind.
A human under hypnosis is not unconscious, merely less conscious of that which is around him, and more conscious of his memories.
Originally posted by Rader
The "Ultimate Truth" can not be found alone by these but it is wise not to tell lies, 1 plus 1 equals 2 and apples fall. These are some of the tools for finding it. What do you use for finding it?
I agree and idealism is a consensus among some open minded scientists who do not see things as a materialist would.
There great they give us the best theoretical proofs in our present day of objective reality. The human race has been here for 1 nanosecond in time, nobody uses them but us. 1,000,000 years from now these theories will be simple arithmetic. There will be a more profound understanding than that, which is what we have now, totally different.
You mean like live or dead. I told that story before you ruled it out with Zero. There is enough scientific proof of dead people coming back and telling there whitetunnel stories with concrete objective evidence.
When i said you, i did not mean only you. It can be done by anyone with a conscious mind. There is scientific documentation of consciousness from outside of a individual conscious mind.
Both words below try to describe the dream state. Less conscious is just another word that does not fully describe the dream state.
Unconscious> Lacking awareness and the capacity for sensory perception; not conscious. Subconscious> Not wholly conscious; partially or imperfectly conscious.
What would you consider the dream states purpose?
Originally posted by Mentat
Those things can be observed directly. I used my eyes to find those "truths", and yet they are not exact truths. For example, at the quantum level, anyone subatomic particle can be in two places at once - thus appearing to us to be two particles. So, if I take one particle plus another particle, I could easily have 4 or 100 or [oo].
Yes that's true until there is an observation and the wave function collapes. It seems strange or akward that materialists use this example of subjective reality to describe obejective reality, yet do not want to include it in the equation.
I never said that idealism was a consensus among any scientists, so how can you "agree"? Besides, the scientific method itself is based on the existence of an objective, and objectively studyable, reality.
I said, idealism is a consensus among some open minded scientists who do not see things as a materialist would.
A materialist use subjective material to describe the objective world. Strings and forces have nerer been seen, heard, felt, smelled or tasted.
BS. There is no grounds to either of those claims (that no other beings use the same physics to describe the Universe, or that more profound understanding will have to be "totally different" from that which we've come to now).
Why BS. We have gone from Newtonian, Relativity, Cuantom Mechanics and now Super Strings. Why is there not anything after that? These have been here 1 nano second or 100 years only.
A person who's brain has literally, and medically, died, cannot come back (unless resurrected by God ). People who tell stories of "white tunnels" were not completely dead, but merely what is called "technically dead" which is where the heart stops beating, but the brain is still somewhat active (active enough to keep one somewhat alive).
The problem here is what is the definition of dead. When the machine beeps and the line is as stait as an arrow that's "technically dead" No lungs no heart and no brain waves is "technically dead" but not finally dead. On quote> by you, unless resurrected by God, the body does not come back to life. There are documented cases of "technically dead" coming back to life after several minutes to hours. So when is the body dead? The body is dead when there is no life or consciousness in it allowed by God. A documented case of 60 minutes dead and returning to life is worth study. If the consciousness when dead comes back to life to account its experience when conscious again, then consciousness is not only in the body and mind.. When conscious becomes subconscious and is occupied by another conscious to relate objective reality, then consciousness is not only in the body and mimd.
No there's not.
There is if you look for it.
Fine, and the dream - or hypnotic - state is the second choice "subconscious", not completely unconscious.
OK
"Purpose"[?] I never said dreams had a purpose.
Originally posted by Rader
Yes that's true until there is an observation and the wave function collapes. It seems strange or akward that materialists use this example of subjective reality to describe obejective reality, yet do not want to include it in the equation.
I said, idealism is a consensus among some open minded scientists who do not see things as a materialist would.
A materialist use subjective material to describe the objective world. Strings and forces have nerer been seen, heard, felt, smelled or tasted.
Why BS. We have gone from Newtonian, Relativity, Cuantom Mechanics and now Super Strings. Why is there not anything after that? These have been here 1 nano second or 100 years only.
The problem here is what is the definition of dead. When the machine beeps and the line is as stait as an arrow that's "technically dead" No lungs no heart and no brain waves is "technically dead" but not finally dead.
On quote> by you, unless resurrected by God...
...the body does not come back to life. There are documented cases of "technically dead" coming back to life after several minutes to hours. So when is the body dead? The body is dead when there is no life or consciousness in it allowed by God. A documented case of 60 minutes dead and returning to life is worth study. If the consciousness when dead comes back to life to account its experience when conscious again, then consciousness is not only in the body and mind.. When conscious becomes subconscious and is occupied by another conscious to relate objective relity, then consciousness is not only in the body and mimd.
There is if you look for it.
I never said you did, just interested in your opinion. I started a thread on this subject.
Originally posted by Mentat
Wait a minute, how does QM have anything to do with "subjective reality"?
In the way that QM deals with things that can not be seen on the fundamental level. If the description of subjective is existing only within the experiencer's mind, where does that put particles. Everytime we delve deeper we are dealing with the subjective, only what can be seen is the objective. Before there was the first observation and that wave function collaped, there was nothing but sujective reality, only because of a Observer, objective reality came into being.
But they are postulated based on things that have been
Yes they are but before they have been, it was subjective reality.
But, really, Relativity and QM were just modifications (denying some of the central postulates, but not all of them) of Newtonian mechanics, which is still useful for day-to-day life. What I'm trying to say is that, while there have been drastic changes in our conception of the Universe, in the past, there is no reason to believe it will happen again (or that it wont, which is why I'm neutral on that subject, instead of claiming one way or the other).
My opinion is that its short minded to think we have done it all. When we are a phase III society system and can harness the energy from an entire galaxy, it will be drastically distinct.
I forget who said it in physics there is two things for sure physics and stamp collecting. By stamp collecting is meant we give names to many things we do not even know what they really are. No pun intended the physicist of today does a fine job of explaining objective reality with experimental objective proofs.
I don't think the brain waves have ever completely ceased (even if they've fallen into undetectability), when a person was "technically dead" but came back.
[/COLOR] I agree with that the machines could be not good enough to detect faint brain waves. This could be the reason why they come back, they were never dead, God maybe had no hand here.
If all brain activity ceased, then they wouldn't remember a "white tunnel", since you can't remember without your brain.
Ok let's leave it at that we do not know if there is no brain waves which means total death or if they are just so faint we can not detect them
But that is not the quesion we really want to answer. The important question is does consciousness exist outside of the body whether or not it is alive or dead?[/COLOR
Lets try and reason this out with the data we have. There are thousands of cases of white tunnel dreaming where the patient can descirbe objective reality that occurred during the time period the mind and body is subcconscious.
How can there be no awareness, no perception, no consciousness and yet the conscious mind of the patient later recall objective reality when the patient was in a subconsiouss state.
A small joke, mind you.
I thought you were serious, maybe getting soft or something.
But this is all ad hoc, and thus violates Occam's Razor at every turn. Is it not better to stick to less assumptions?
I am not trying to make a assumption, iam trying to use objective data for proof of a subjective reality.
Almost anything can "exist" for those looking for it. Those that "look for" signs of intelligent design in the Universe are going to find it, while those who look for chaos are going to find
that.
Anything the human mind can imagine will one day be reality.
Oh, ok.
What i want is a new definition for consciousness.1. Consciousness is awareness of itself. 2. Consciousness itself is the universe. 3 The conscious universe is in all things and all things are in the universe, therefore consciousness is everywhere. 4. Consciousness is cummulative and reductive. 5. Consciousness manifests itself on its evolutionary level, although it knows all levels.
Originally posted by Rader
In the way that QM deals with things that can not be seen on the fundamental level. If the description of subjective is existing only within the experiencer's mind, where does that put particles?
Everytime we delve deeper we are dealing with the subjective, only what can be seen is the objective. Before there was the first observation and that wave function collaped, there was nothing but sujective reality, only because of a Observer, objective reality came into being. [/COLOR]
Yes they are but before they have been, it was subjective reality.
My opinion is that its short minded to think we have done it all. When we are a phase III society system and can harness the energy from an entire galaxy, it will be drastically distinct.
I agree with that the machines could be not good enough to detect faint brain waves. This could be the reason why they come back, they were never dead, God maybe had no hand here.
Ok let's leave it at that we do not know if there is no brain waves which means total death or if they are just so faint we can not detect them
But that is not the quesion we really want to answer. The important question is does consciousness exist outside of the body whether or not it is alive or dead?
Lets try and reason this out with the data we have. There are thousands of cases of white tunnel dreaming where the patient can descirbe objective reality that occurred during the time period the mind and body is subcconscious.
How can there be no awareness, no perception, no consciousness and yet the conscious mind of the patient later recall objective reality when the patient was in a subconsiouss state.
If there was no awareness, then they were never aware of a white tunnel. If there was awareness, then they were.
I thought you were serious, maybe getting soft or something.
Making sure I didn't bore you by being "too serious", as I have been accused of many times before.
Anything the human mind can imagine will one day be reality.
I can imagine a human flying without apparatus. Are you willing to stake your life on the assumption that this will be possible one day?
What i want is a new definition for consciousness.1. Consciousness is awareness of itself.
Not necessarily. A being could be conscious of it's surroundings without being conscious of itself.
2. Consciousness itself is the universe.
Impossible, consciousness cannot be both a unique part of the Universe, and the Universe itself.
3 The conscious universe is in all things and all things are in the universe, therefore consciousness is everywhere.
Panpsychism?
4. Consciousness is cummulative and reductive.
Explain.
5. Consciousness manifests itself on its evolutionary level, although it knows all levels.
Explain.
Originally posted by Mentat
It puts them as objective, since particles can be seen (in principle).
That is only in part true and you know that. Everything from particles to the the plank length is subjective material. Visual confirmation with experimental confirmed data makes the objective proof.
Not again. Forgive me, but I'm a little tired of the "observer" problem. Curse these books for the layman that make it seem as though QM requires a conscious observer!
Im all ears then expalin QM in another way. Even Albert said he did not understand it. I understand it that way. My whole thesis is based on that fact.
If they hadn't been observed, they would not have been a subjective reality. Your subjective experience is dependent on your having had an objective world to experience.
How can you change my words backwards? There was an observation and therefore there is objective reality.
I don't think we've done it all. I think there might need to be a complete revision of everything but that that's just as likely as that there will only need to be modifications.
Thats a viable possibility but it does not coincide with historical evidence. Science advances in quantum leaps not small modifications. Your looking at it into small a time frame.
I never said He did.
OK But does that mean it is not a possibility?
As you wish.
Only for the moment.
Whether there is no brain waves is not important as it is a aspect of the physical body.
Yes, and part of your answer hinged on the out-of-body experiences which you have now requested that we leave out.
You have a way of twisting my words to suite your intention. An astral trip of two individuals confirming the same objective data is worth looking into. See the link on my previous post.
Subconscious, but never unconscious.
subconscious is one thing as unconsiouss meaning dead.[/COLOR
Making sure I didn't bore you by being "too serious", as I have been accused of many times before.
You are not boring me, be yourself that is why we are exchanging thought.
I can imagine a human flying without apparatus. Are you willing to stake your life on the assumption that this will be possible one day?
Ask that question to Orvill Wright in the context of his time with a apparatus. My answer is "YES" Did you mean with a body or without it?
Not necessarily. A being could be conscious of it's surroundings without being conscious of itself.
That is subconciousness. It is a form of consciousness the dream state.
Impossible, consciousness cannot be both a unique part of the Universe, and the Universe itself.
The universe is holographic as is concsiousness. Same principle all is in every part.
Panpsychism?
The conscious universe is in all things and all things are in the universe, therefore consciousness is everywhere.
My thesis
Explain.
Consciousness is cummulative and reductive. Consciousness is cummulative in evolutionary objective reality and reductive when the form ceases to exist objectivly and returns to its subjective reality.
Explain.
Consciousness manifests itself on its evolutionary level, although it knows all levels. Consciousness evolves through objective realities, the means by which it does is though the total "subjective truth"
We need to ask more important questions. Why is there two realities subjective and objective?
What is the purpose of objective reality evolving?
Why are we on the objective side of reality or are we?
Originally posted by Netme
Consciousness comes from self awareness which is what most animals use. As our senses take in information from the outside world to our brain this information passes through our brain's electromagnetic field to neurons which then goes back through the magnetic field where a consciousness is formed creating a self-referring loop. This recycling of information through the electro magnetic field in our brains which is created by collective, synchronous neuron firings is what makes us able to recall what we have just done.
Originally posted by Rader
Im all ears then expalin QM in another way. Even Albert said he did not understand it. I understand it that way. My whole thesis is based on that fact.
How can you change my words backwards? There was an observation and therefore there is objective reality.
Thats a viable possibility but it does not coincide with historical evidence. Science advances in quantum leaps not small modifications. Your looking at it into small a time frame.
OK But does that mean it is not a possibility?
Whether there is no brain waves is not important as it is a aspect of the physical body.
subconscious is one thing as unconsiouss meaning dead.
You are not boring me, be yourself that is why we are exchanging thought.
Ask that question to Orvill Wright in the context of his time with a apparatus. My answer is "YES" Did you mean with a body or without it?
That is subconciousness. It is a form of consciousness the dream state.
The universe is holographic as is concsiousness. Same principle all is in every part.
The conscious universe is in all things and all things are in the universe, therefore consciousness is everywhere.
My thesis
Consciousness is cummulative and reductive. Consciousness is cummulative in evolutionary objective reality and reductive when the form ceases to exist objectivly and returns to its subjective reality.
We need to ask more important questions. Why is there two realities subjective and objective?
What is the purpose of objective reality evolving?
Thats not the way the particles are described in physics. They can not be located until observed.Originally posted by Mentat
Nobody can conceive of QM. We just don't progress that way mentally. Man, centuries ago, didn't need to leap out of the way of one creature jumping at him from two different sides.
But we have models and ideas to rationalize how it works and we know it does or we would not be able to watch TV.
As it is, conscious observation is not necessary for Quantum Mechanics to work.
Originally posted by Rader
But we have models and ideas to rationalize how it works and we know it does or we would not be able to watch TV.
Thats not the way the particles are described in physics. They can not be located until observed.
Thats contradictory to what is reality. There must be a first observer then the first wave funtion collapses and the virtual particle leaves subjective reality and becomes oblective reality. The chain of observations continues from 1> infinity > evolution occurs and we exist.
You use my observation and argument to confirm something is not true. Yes we agree we have been here a short period of time BUT scientific advancement is growiing in quantum leaps. 2>4>16>256>65536> not 1>2>3>4>5. Tecknology start slows but when it gets moving it is like a locamotive train.
If nobody cut against grain and disagreed there would be no new ideas and advancement.
Wrong there is scientific study and documenttion all over the planet that confirms your statement is false.
It has been said that the distance from you and me to the end of the universe is equivilent to the distance from the center of an atom to the Planck length. We have not discovered what is there yet, do you realize how large a distance that is, it is another universe. Yet whatever is there effects objective reality and it is until viewed subjective reality. Yet you say, if there were some non-physical aspect to the body, it would have no way of interacting with the physical aspect. When we can see what is there at the Planck length and it is objective, i will believe it, until then my thesis is as valid as yours.
They should take unconsciousness out of the dictionary or refrase its meaning, as it has the same meaning as subconsciousness. They should take the un and make it a no. Noconsciousness meaning dead, gone back to fundamental base conciousness found in the atom. As you would say electro-magnetic covalent bonding.
Got you there, check mate. You mean a word and meaning in the dictionary makes a divine truth. Human today is not what it was yesterday and not what it will be tomorrow. There is scientific evidence that it is false.
It is, it is called among many things a astral trip.
You had better go to my thread on Why do we dream? WoW you mean to tell me you do not daydream. Nobody can keep a perfect concentration in the objective world, we move between the objective and subjective during the day as well as sleeptime..
Without assumption there is no advancement, i do agree that objective proofs of subjective reality is necessary and there are.
The universe is holographic as is concsiousness. The conscious universe is in all things and all things are in the universe, therefore consciousness is everywhere.
We could, of course, discount for these purposes the role ofOriginally posted by Jeebus [/B]