ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 4th November 2017, 11:14 AM   #121
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,839
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
And that way is?
I have no idea. But a collection of neurons and synapses can obviously do it, and I see no good reason to assume it's the only thing that ever can and ever will.

It took us a long time to work out how the sun generated energy via nuclear fusion, but we didn't assume we would never be able to duplicate the process. Why should we assume we'll never be able to duplicate consciousness, just because we don't currently fully understand how the brain generates it?
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 11:47 AM   #122
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
I have no idea. But a collection of neurons and synapses can obviously do it, and I see no good reason to assume it's the only thing that ever can and ever will.
I see no good reason to assume anything, including the possibility of conscious machines. Or that there actually is an organic brain producing consciousness. You're assuming reality is materialistic. That is an assumption that could obviously be wrong.

Quote:
It took us a long time to work out how the sun generated energy via nuclear fusion, but we didn't assume we would never be able to duplicate the process. Why should we assume we'll never be able to duplicate consciousness, just because we don't currently fully understand how the brain generates it?
That's an interesting word. It implies there is some understanding of how the brain generates consciousness, yet you said you "have no idea".

As far as the sun goes, before we understood about fusion, no one ever claimed it was possible to duplicate the process with a ham sandwich.

Last edited by Fudbucker; 4th November 2017 at 11:48 AM.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 11:56 AM   #123
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,839
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I see no good reason to assume anything, including the possibility of conscious machines.
I'm not, but I'm also not ruling it out, which you appear to be for no good reason I can see.

Quote:
Or that there actually is an organic brain producing consciousness. You're assuming reality is materialistic. That is an assumption that could obviously be wrong.
The evidence that consciousness is an emergent property of brains seems to me to be compelling. Yes it's an assumption, but it's a reasonable one to make.

Quote:
That's an interesting word. It implies there is some understanding of how the brain generates consciousness, yet you said you "have no idea".
I'm not a neurologist.

Quote:
As far as the sun goes, before we understood about fusion, no one ever claimed it was possible to duplicate the process with a ham sandwich.
But they also never claimed it was and always would be impossible for anything except a star.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 12:01 PM   #124
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,670
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I see no good reason to assume anything, including the possibility of conscious machines. Or that there actually is an organic brain producing consciousness. You're assuming reality is materialistic. That is an assumption that could obviously be wrong.
Your position is one where you can attack anything, while not assuming anything. I think you err. Your every word is an assumption. It's impossible to operate without them.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 12:07 PM   #125
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
I'm not, but I'm also not ruling it out, which you appear to be for no good reason I can see.
I'm not ruling it out. I'm asking why people think it's possible, and not in the logical sense like it's possible there's an invisible pink unicorn in the room. You are not agnostic about invisible pink unicorns, I take it. You consider machine intelligence to be a "live possibility", do you not? Something we should seriously consider? From whence does that conviction come from?

I've ruled out conscious rope-brains, for obvious reasons. Do you think that's possible? Is it possible to simulate a universe of conscious being by moving rocks around?


Quote:
The evidence that consciousness is an emergent property of brains seems to me to be compelling. Yes it's an assumption, but it's a reasonable one to make.
Why is it reasonable to assume the sensory information we receive about the world corresponds to a particular version of reality when it's consistent when countless versions of reality? Is it reasonable to assume we're not in a simulation, for example? That the brains you think are producing consciousness aren't brains at all, but just collections of 1's and 0's? Why do you assume you're not in a simulation?


Quote:
I'm not a neurologist.
So find one who can explain how the brain produces consciousness. It shouldn't be hard.


Quote:
But they also never claimed it was and always would be impossible for anything except a star.
Certain things were obviously never considered because they were so ridiculous. Nobody seriously entertained the notion that we could duplicate the sun's energy-making process with ropes and pulleys or switches. Yet that is exactly what some materialists think about consciousness. Are you one of them? Do you think ropes and pulleys can become conscious?
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 12:10 PM   #126
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by Donn View Post
Your position is one where you can attack anything, while not assuming anything. I think you err. Your every word is an assumption. It's impossible to operate without them.
My position is the same as Descartes': question everything until you find something you can't question. Of course I make assumptions. That doesn't mean they're valid. I assume the sun will rise tomorrow. I also am aware of Hume's analysis of the kind of circular reasoning that assumption rests on.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 12:19 PM   #127
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,839
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I'm not ruling it out. I'm asking why people think it's possible
Because the generation of consciousness clearly is possible - a brain can do it - so why couldn't something else of the same order of complexity?

I don't think that degree of complexity could ever practically be built out of ropes and pulleys, but miniaturised electronic components which duplicate each component part of a brain in a fairly small volume - why not?
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 12:23 PM   #128
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,670
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Because the generation of consciousness clearly is possible - a brain can do it - so why couldn't something else of the same order of complexity?

I don't think that degree of complexity could ever practically be built out of ropes and pulleys, but miniaturised electronic components which duplicate each component part of a brain in a fairly small volume - why not?
This. I really don't see Fud's point.

We know X is possible because Xs abound. Therefore it's not impossible that we might duplicate X.

What's materialism got to do with it?
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 12:42 PM   #129
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,670
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Why is it reasonable to assume the sensory information we receive about the world corresponds to a particular version of reality when it's consistent when countless versions of reality?
The input is under scrutiny. That's science and friends. It has taken a long time to winnow the versions to the short list that comports with the inputs.

I don't think there are countless "versions" that can match the inputs; not even a few. I think there's only going to be one version that fits the mould of reality.

We may never reach it, but we cleave ever more approximately.

Quote:
Is it reasonable to assume we're not in a simulation, for example? That the brains you think are producing consciousness aren't brains at all, but just collections of 1's and 0's? Why do you assume you're not in a simulation?
My beef with simulations is that it's not just software. My pc can simulate another, but it's so much slower. If I run a virtual box inside that box, well.. heck.

There is a range in which simulation is possible. (Once again with the ranges.)

If we are a simulation, does it matter? It would simply be another fact about reality—we'd improve our version.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 04:49 PM   #130
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Because the generation of consciousness clearly is possible - a brain can do it - so why couldn't something else of the same order of complexity?
I'm not at all sure brains even exist. Why are you so sure this isn't a simulation? What is your evidence that it isn't?

But let's grant that there are brains and they produce consciousness. Let's look at your claim about complexity:

There are a lot of complex things: the internet, Babbage's engine, cars, computers, ecosystems, etc. Are they conscious? If so, how? If not, why? If complexity is required for consciousness, how much complexity? Why is there a threshold? Are less complex things than a brain still conscious, but to a lesser degree?

Quote:
I don't think that degree of complexity could ever practically be built out of ropes and pulleys,
I wish you had been here in the heyday of this forum. In any case, as a thought experiment, would an arrangement of ropes and pulleys as complex as a brain be conscious? And, of course, you could simulate such a system on a computer. Would such a simulation be conscious?

Quote:
but miniaturised electronic components which duplicate each component part of a brain in a fairly small volume - why not?
The burden of proof is not on me. You are claiming conscious machines are a strong enough possibility to be taken seriously. I am not sure. YOU must provide evidence to support that claim.

And did you ever find a neurologist to explain how the brain produces consciousness?

Last edited by Fudbucker; 4th November 2017 at 05:07 PM.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 05:07 PM   #131
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by Donn View Post
This. I really don't see Fud's point.
Look harder.

Quote:
We know X is possible because Xs abound. Therefore it's not impossible that we might duplicate X.
Wait, are you saying consciousness is a thing? And this is poor logic. The question is whether you can produce consciousness with a DIFFERENT substrate, not a duplicate of a brain.

And even if you could, how would you know it's a duplicate of the kind of consciousness we experience? You don't even know if my conscious experience is remotely similar to yours. My conscious experiences abound. How would you duplicate them? Even if you copied my atoms exactly, how would you know you haven't created a P-zombie? My conscious experience is a black box to anyone but me.

Quote:
What's materialism got to do with it?
Everything.

Last edited by Fudbucker; 4th November 2017 at 05:15 PM.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 05:14 PM   #132
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by Donn View Post
The input is under scrutiny. That's science and friends. It has taken a long time to winnow the versions to the short list that comports with the inputs.

I don't think there are countless "versions" that can match the inputs; not even a few. I think there's only going to be one version that fits the mould of reality.
You may think that, but there's no reason to think your "inputs" would differ under all sorts of models of reality. You could be a brain-in-a-vat being "fed" experiences, you could be in a dream right now, a simulation, a Boltzmann brain, a kind of hell, a kind of heaven...

There's no reason to assume your "inputs" would be any different in any of these models of reality. There are the shadows on the wall and the things that cause the shadows. The shadows could be caused by a thousand different kinds of things.

Quote:
We may never reach it, but we cleave ever more approximately.
Evidence?


Quote:
My beef with simulations is that it's not just software. My pc can simulate another, but it's so much slower. If I run a virtual box inside that box, well.. heck.
So it's slower? So what?

Quote:
There is a range in which simulation is possible. (Once again with the ranges.)

If we are a simulation, does it matter? It would simply be another fact about reality—we'd improve our version.
Does it matter that simulated brains are producing consciousness instead of organic brains? I think so, yes.

Last edited by Fudbucker; 4th November 2017 at 05:15 PM.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 08:59 PM   #133
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,869
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
The same way a collection of neurons and synapses can become conscious, presumably.
How those beings which do not have apparent neurons & brain got power of sense? Eg. Touch me not plant, plant moving towards sunlight & nutrient source etc.. I think, even Mineral kingdom can also be existed or vibrational enhancement on any external stimuli or touch by energy transfer from higher to lower level.
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 06:57 AM   #134
Peregrinus
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 978
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
How those beings which do not have apparent neurons & brain got power of sense? Eg. Touch me not plant, plant moving towards sunlight & nutrient source etc.. I think, even Mineral kingdom can also be existed or vibrational enhancement on any external stimuli or touch by energy transfer from higher to lower level.
Consciousness is only one expression of senses at work. Many organisms from a paramecium onward to the more complex have demonstrable sensory attributes yet totally lack consciousness. As for "mineral spirits," you don't really want to go there.
Peregrinus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 09:36 AM   #135
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
Consciousness is only one expression of senses at work. Many organisms from a paramecium onward to the more complex have demonstrable sensory attributes yet totally lack consciousness. As for "mineral spirits," you don't really want to go there.
Evidence for this assertion?

Last edited by Fudbucker; 5th November 2017 at 10:07 AM.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 10:03 AM   #136
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,670
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Look harder.
No. You: write better.

Quote:
Wait, are you saying consciousness is a thing?
When it comes to explaining words to you, I have no idea what to say.

Quote:
And this is poor logic. The question is whether you can produce consciousness with a DIFFERENT substrate, not a duplicate of a brain.
If you say so. A few posts back you were telling us brains are not real. Or something.

Quote:
And even if you could, how would you know it's a duplicate of the kind of consciousness we experience? You don't even know if my conscious experience is remotely similar to yours. My conscious experiences abound. How would you duplicate them? Even if you copied my atoms exactly, how would you know you haven't created a P-zombie? My conscious experience is a black box to anyone but me.
Is everything a herring of a ruddy hue with you? I was not talking about duplicating anyone's consciousness.

Quote:
Everything.
Given that you think material is not real, I don't see how.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
You may think that, but there's no reason to think your "inputs" would differ under all sorts of models of reality. You could be a brain-in-a-vat being "fed" experiences, you could be in a dream right now, a simulation, a Boltzmann brain, a kind of hell, a kind of heaven...
I don't think so; given that I still don't follow what you mean. Each of your "could bes" are not fully fleshed-out descriptive treatments of the real. Only the story science tells is closest of all human works in covering all the questions.

Quote:
There's no reason to assume your "inputs" would be any different in any of these models of reality. There are the shadows on the wall and the things that cause the shadows. The shadows could be caused by a thousand different kinds of things.
Okay, I did get your gist. I disagree. Anything, any story, any thousandth-different-cause, would be a pale shadow of Science; unless it's equal or better. If so, then I'd think it would be at least similar and would be accepted and we'd continue iterating.

Quote:
Evidence?
Que?


Quote:
So it's slower? So what?
Add a few layers and nothing happens. That's what. The sim in a sim in a sim, with sims all the way down is not a valid notion: because it would cease-up within a few layers.

Quote:
Does it matter that simulated brains are producing consciousness instead of organic brains? I think so, yes.
So brains are organic now? I can't keep up.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 10:06 AM   #137
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by Donn View Post
No. You: write better.



When it comes to explaining words to you, I have no idea what to say.



If you say so. A few posts back you were telling us brains are not real. Or something.



Is everything a herring of a ruddy hue with you? I was not talking about duplicating anyone's consciousness.



Given that you think material is not real, I don't see how.



I don't think so; given that I still don't follow what you mean. Each of your "could bes" are not fully fleshed-out descriptive treatments of the real. Only the story science tells is closest of all human works in covering all the questions.



Okay, I did get your gist. I disagree. Anything, any story, any thousandth-different-cause, would be a pale shadow of Science; unless it's equal or better. If so, then I'd think it would be at least similar and would be accepted and we'd continue iterating.



Que?




Add a few layers and nothing happens. That's what. The sim in a sim in a sim, with sims all the way down is not a valid notion: because it would cease-up within a few layers.



So brains are organic now? I can't keep up.
True. I'm not going to bother will all this.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 10:21 AM   #138
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,670
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
True. I'm not going to bother will all this.
Peachy.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 12:23 PM   #139
jrhowell
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 267
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Wait, are you saying consciousness is a thing? And this is poor logic. The question is whether you can produce consciousness with a DIFFERENT substrate, not a duplicate of a brain.

And even if you could, how would you know it's a duplicate of the kind of consciousness we experience? You don't even know if my conscious experience is remotely similar to yours. My conscious experiences abound. How would you duplicate them? Even if you copied my atoms exactly, how would you know you haven't created a P-zombie? My conscious experience is a black box to anyone but me.
I think that our current spotty knowledge of how conciousness is produced by the brain leaves an opening for all kinds of far-fetched speculation. As we have learned more about other organs many of the wrong guesses about the non-materialist nature of how the body functions have been proven wrong.

The heart is a blood pump, not the center of emotion as was once supposed. But even though we know what it does, even now we do not have the ability to produce an artificial replacement that will work for the long term.

As the result of a huge effort we now can sequence our genome, but we are barely getting started in understanding how genetic sequences map to the development and functioning of the body.

We know a fair amount about how the brain is organized at the largest scale and about the functioning of individual neurons, but there is still a huge gap in our understanding of neuronal organization. It will take time, perhaps centuries, to work out the neural connectome and then derive from that the principles by which the brain operates. It is the most complex thing that we have ever tried to understand.

But once we do, and we can correlate all of the aspects of human experience and mental functioning to the construction of the brain, there will be no place left for woo-ish explanations to hide. Until then the only refutation I can offer is that everything else about ourselves that science has examined has turned out to have a materialistic explanation. I see no reason to think that the human mind and consciousness will turn out to be the exception.
jrhowell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 02:14 PM   #140
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,941
Yes well put.

To those that would suggest there is some non material source behind consciousness I ask: "Can you point to something else that has been shown to have a non material input".
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 07:13 PM   #141
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Yes well put.

To those that would suggest there is some non material source behind consciousness I ask: "Can you point to something else that has been shown to have a non material input".
Again, you commit circular reasoning. I can just as easily ask: can you point to something else that has been shown to have a material input?

You are assuming materialism to be the case. That is obviously not the same as it being the case.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 07:28 PM   #142
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,122
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
You are assuming materialism to be the case.
Even in the most esoteric, philosophically nitpicking topics I think trying to spin "Reality exist" into some unreasonable assumption is a bit much.

I don't know at what point exactly "Materialist" became the goto slur to slap on anybody who counters "I get to make up my own reality" with "No, you don't." but it's getting old. If there's not a reality for you and me to be discussing all we can do is play a rousing game of who has the better imagination while we star at the wall of Plato's cave.

If you honestly think reality isn't real, that the world goes away we close our eyes, Platos Cave, the Matrix, Brain in Vat, whatever pick your metaphor, fine. You're right in the abstract that it's an unprovable concept but it's all thought terminating. You don't get to go "reality doesn't exist" and try to go anywhere from there.

You can't claim in the world doesn't exist but retain the desire or even ability to want to learn anything else about it in any meaningful sense. You can just sit there and make more and more stuff up.

It can't be used only the retort sense as it literally always is in these discussion. It's always, always the same "You can't prove reality is real to some esoteric level, therefore you don't get to tell me that an opinion I hold isn't sufficiently supported." which doesn't make any kind of sense. If reality isn't real that makes stuff not supported less likely, not more.

I get it when faced with skepticism its' easy to just try and firebomb the entire concept of knowing anything, it's a tactic we see constantly but it doesn't work because people act like that somehow proves their beliefs.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Hating a bad thing does not make you good." - David Wong
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 08:00 PM   #143
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,869
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
Consciousness is only one expression of senses at work. Many organisms from a paramecium onward to the more complex have demonstrable sensory attributes yet totally lack consciousness. As for "mineral spirits," you don't really want to go there.
Thanks.

Probably we need to differentiate between consciousness/awareness & Intelligence.
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 08:25 PM   #144
Hopeful Parallel
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 23
As I found out while browsing an AI or artificial intelligence, won't replicate the human brain immediately though it helps in finding solutions or save problems.
Hopeful Parallel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 08:27 PM   #145
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,869
Originally Posted by Hopeful Parallel View Post
As I found out while browsing an AI or artificial intelligence, won't replicate the human brain immediately though it helps in finding solutions or save problems.
Instinct intelligence?
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 10:24 PM   #146
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,224
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I'm not at all sure brains even exist. Why are you so sure this isn't a simulation? What is your evidence that it isn't?
Careful, Fudbucker. You're perilously close to falling into the philosophical dead-end of solipsism.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 10:29 PM   #147
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,224
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Thanks.

Probably we need to differentiate between consciousness/awareness & Intelligence.
No, your problem is that you need to differentiate between reaction to stimulus and consciousness.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 11:02 PM   #148
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,869
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
No, your problem is that you need to differentiate between reaction to stimulus and consciousness.
Pls tell it.
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 11:06 PM   #149
Little 10 Toes
Graduate Poster
 
Little 10 Toes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,836
Simple. Plants do not have consciousness, but they react to stimulus.
Little 10 Toes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 11:18 PM   #150
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,224
Lots of things react to stimuli. Calcium carbonate (beach shells) reacts to the presence of hydrochloric acid. That doesn't mean that the calcium carbonate senses the acid, and it doesn't mean that the calcium carbonate is exhibiting consciousness.

If you water a wilting plant, it raises its leaves. The plant isn't sensing the presence of water, it is reacting to the presence of water. No consciousness is required to react.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 11:31 PM   #151
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,869
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Lots of things react to stimuli. Calcium carbonate (beach shells) reacts to the presence of hydrochloric acid. That doesn't mean that the calcium carbonate senses the acid, and it doesn't mean that the calcium carbonate is exhibiting consciousness.

If you water a wilting plant, it raises its leaves. The plant isn't sensing the presence of water, it is reacting to the presence of water. No consciousness is required to react.
But when leaves fold on touch to touch me not plant and plant parts move/bend towards water n nutrient source, what will be it?
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 11:33 PM   #152
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,869
Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes View Post
Simple. Plants do not have consciousness, but they react to stimulus.
How reaction or sensing can not be considered as consciousness or awareness?
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 11:33 PM   #153
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,224
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
But when leaves fold on touch to touch me not plant and plant parts move/bend towards water n nutrient source, what will be it?
That's one of the most canonical examples of plants reacting to stimuli.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 12:03 AM   #154
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,869
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
That's one of the most canonical examples of plants reacting to stimuli.
Whether consiciousness is not dependent on any stimulí?
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 08:31 AM   #155
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,670
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Lots of things react to stimuli. Calcium carbonate (beach shells) reacts to the presence of hydrochloric acid. That doesn't mean that the calcium carbonate senses the acid, and it doesn't mean that the calcium carbonate is exhibiting consciousness.

If you water a wilting plant, it raises its leaves. The plant isn't sensing the presence of water, it is reacting to the presence of water. No consciousness is required to react.
I like the way you put it.

Makes me think of describing consciousness as a reaction; a hyper-intricate one. We are not supernatural, therefore, at base, we are like the plant reacting to the water. What is a sense, if not a feedback-system from initial reactions?

I'm just rambling. I tend to think consciousness (as a word, as a concept) is a special plea. It's meant to be special; only glanced at; always beyond mere material explanation. By some.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 02:08 PM   #156
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,941
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Again, you commit circular reasoning. I can just as easily ask: can you point to something else that has been shown to have a material input?

You are assuming materialism to be the case. That is obviously not the same as it being the case.

I can't see circular reasoning in my post and in answer to the highlighted will quote from jrhowell's post:

Quote:
Until then the only refutation I can offer is that everything else about ourselves that science has examined has turned out to have a materialistic explanation. I see no reason to think that the human mind and consciousness will turn out to be the exception.
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 12:36 AM   #157
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,224
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Whether consiciousness is not dependent on any stimulí?
I don't understand what you are trying to ask me here.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 09:41 AM   #158
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Lots of things react to stimuli. Calcium carbonate (beach shells) reacts to the presence of hydrochloric acid. That doesn't mean that the calcium carbonate senses the acid, and it doesn't mean that the calcium carbonate is exhibiting consciousness.

If you water a wilting plant, it raises its leaves. The plant isn't sensing the presence of water, it is reacting to the presence of water. No consciousness is required to react.
You could say the same about the actions of neurons, with some other chemicals tossed in, of course. Indidividual neurons simply are reacting. They can't sense anything. It's the collection of all these specific neuron activities that results in consciousness, so the story goes. Why can't the same be said for plants?

Last edited by Fudbucker; 9th November 2017 at 09:44 AM.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 09:45 AM   #159
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Careful, Fudbucker. You're perilously close to falling into the philosophical dead-end of solipsism.
That doesn't make it not true. Simulation-theory is popular. Cosmology is also approaching a dead-end by postulating a huge multiverse of universes that is, in principle, impossible to verify.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 10:23 AM   #160
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,670
If solipsism is true: there you are. The perception of everything else continues apace; you end-up having to explain stuff anyway.

Meh.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:47 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.