Home | Community | Message Board

MushroomMan Mycology
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineInsultingLizard
Stranger

Registered: 01/04/20
Posts: 546
Last seen: 4 months, 11 days
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #26479400 - 02/10/20 11:08 PM (4 years, 6 days ago)

It seems that he's using "consciousness" to mean "subjective experience", or "qualia". That is, the feeling of being sentient and perceiving the outside world by interpreting the input from your own senses.

To my knowledge neither biology nor neuroscience have anything to say regarding subjective experience, because "X has qualia" is an unfalsifiable statement. Qualia is a hypothetical concept in philosophy and has never been measured, nor are there any proposed methods to do so. There's no test you can perform on a creature to know if it has qualia or not. He gives the example of computer programs that behave as if sentient but have no qualia. Well, the simple question is how can we know that, say, Asimo has no qualia? He says that its brain is just "unconscious silicon", but if I were to look at Bernardo Kastrup's brain I'd just see unconscious carbon goo.

So, saying "consciousness cannot have evolved" is as useful a statement as "Russell's teapot cannot have accreted from the solar nebula". Yeah, maybe. I don't know. Let's start by showing that the thing exists, yeah?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrendanFlock
Stranger
Male

Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,224
Last seen: 1 day, 2 hours
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: InsultingLizard]
    #26479409 - 02/10/20 11:20 PM (4 years, 6 days ago)

That's true the primary function of the universe is auto drive!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: InsultingLizard]
    #26479464 - 02/11/20 12:54 AM (4 years, 6 days ago)

Quote:

InsultingLizard said:
It seems that he's using "consciousness" to mean "subjective experience", or "qualia". That is, the feeling of being sentient and perceiving the outside world by interpreting the input from your own senses.

To my knowledge neither biology nor neuroscience have anything to say regarding subjective experience, because "X has qualia" is an unfalsifiable statement. Qualia is a hypothetical concept in philosophy and has never been measured, nor are there any proposed methods to do so. ....

So, saying "consciousness cannot have evolved" is as useful a statement as "Russell's teapot cannot have accreted from the solar nebula". Yeah, maybe. I don't know. Let's start by showing that the thing exists, yeah?




.  His article ends with "Phenomenal consciousness cannot have evolved. It can only have been there from the beginning as an intrinsic, irreducible fact of nature. The faster we come to terms with this fact, the faster our understanding of consciousness will progress."

.  So Bernardo Kastrup  wants to prove that "consciousness" has no source, is timeless & eternal, is immaterial, yet manifests stuff, and that since the material can only manifest the material or physical, consciousness cannot be created by the physical. This must also mean 'the self', (being non physical) has no relation to the physical body, as it cannot be created by the physical world.
.    All the while Bernardo fails to realize that the immaterial is not an object & cannot be referred to with a noun and that "consciousness", is a noun, which seems to say little for his level of so called "consciousness". Meanwhile he has nothing to say about why the self dies if it & "consciousness" are independent of the body and brain.

.  Seems he also fails to realize that in his attempt to disqualify what he calls 'materialism', that he ends up defining 'consciousness' as a feeling:
"According to materialism, all functions rest on quantities.
Our phenomenal consciousness is eminently qualitative, not quantitative. ..
However, our phenomenal consciousness is eminently qualitative, not quantitative. There is something it feels like to see the colour red, which is not captured by merely noting the frequency of red light. ..."

.    And of course feelings are embodied, and any feeling is no more special than another. Whether fear, or anger, or happiness or sorrow appear for a while, they all may seem/feel important for a little while only to vanish and be replaced by another shortly thereafter.
And the phenomenon of false awakening within a dream, proves the point, that feelings are both fleeting and unreliable sources of accurate data.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=false+awakening&t=h_&ia=web
When a false awakening happens a person realizes they were dreaming, and "wakes up" and more events then take place only for the dreamer, to discover a bit later, once again that they are dreaming...
https://howtolucid.com/false-awakening-loops/

.  So very clearly feelings cannot be relied upon to indicate full consciousness-- the exact opposite of what Bernardo claims.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,947
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: laughingdog]
    #26479565 - 02/11/20 05:04 AM (4 years, 5 days ago)

His article says good consciousness cannot have evolved?

Can you explain that to me.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Edited by sudly (02/11/20 05:13 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,947
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved Alone " [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #26479567 - 02/11/20 05:08 AM (4 years, 5 days ago)

Well, I don't think good consciousness could have evolved alone.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Edited by sudly (02/11/20 05:57 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,825
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: sudly] * 1
    #26479852 - 02/11/20 09:44 AM (4 years, 5 days ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Perhaps we can add this to the discussion, that being conscious is inherent to life.






Yes, I think that is reasonable and correct. Incidentally, I think that is one of the positions of the author of the article.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,825
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: InsultingLizard]
    #26479859 - 02/11/20 09:48 AM (4 years, 5 days ago)

Quote:

InsultingLizard said:
So, saying "consciousness cannot have evolved" is as useful a statement as "Russell's teapot cannot have accreted from the solar nebula". Yeah, maybe. I don't know. Let's start by showing that the thing exists, yeah?





Given what we know about the people and animals around us, to suppose that consciousness might not exist is less reasonable than assuming it does. So we can make consciousness a given. There is no use arguing about, or proving, whether consciousness exists. Just as in mathematics we have to assume axioms that cannot be proven.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineInsultingLizard
Stranger

Registered: 01/04/20
Posts: 546
Last seen: 4 months, 11 days
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #26479975 - 02/11/20 11:05 AM (4 years, 5 days ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Quote:

InsultingLizard said:
So, saying "consciousness cannot have evolved" is as useful a statement as "Russell's teapot cannot have accreted from the solar nebula". Yeah, maybe. I don't know. Let's start by showing that the thing exists, yeah?





Given what we know about the people and animals around us, to suppose that consciousness might not exist is less reasonable than assuming it does. So we can make consciousness a given. There is no use arguing about, or proving, whether consciousness exists. Just as in mathematics we have to assume axioms that cannot be proven.




I don't agree. If we were talking about sentience (the capacity of an organism to respond to stimuli in its environment) then that would be a different matter, but "consciousness" in this sense is basically interchangeable with "soul". To me at least, that humans have souls and AIs don't (or can't) is not obvious.

As for axioms, the point of axioms is that they're tools that help you reason soundly. Science already has axioms such as "the universe is not consciously trying to fool experimenters". If you don't make that assumption you can't do science, because you can't trust any of your observations.
"Some living beings and only living beings have consciousness" would be an inappropriate axiom because it doesn't help you discover anything new. Also, when you make something an axiom you're implicitly accepting that you're no longer going to bother checking if it's true. That's a very dangerous game to play.


Edited by InsultingLizard (02/11/20 11:08 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,825
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: InsultingLizard]
    #26480001 - 02/11/20 11:23 AM (4 years, 5 days ago)

Well my only point is that if we do not assume that other people, and possibly animals, are indeed conscious, we're just wallowing in pointless philosophical sophistry. For me to say that you are very probably conscious is not an unacceptable axiom.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineInsultingLizard
Stranger

Registered: 01/04/20
Posts: 546
Last seen: 4 months, 11 days
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #26480070 - 02/11/20 12:11 PM (4 years, 5 days ago)

I agree that at least other humans and many animals have subjective experiences. However, that's merely an intuition: "things that are like me tend to have properties similar to me, even when those properties aren't immediately obvious". There is currently no way to test this intuition. One of the key points the author makes is that science claims consciousness is epiphenomenal, but science has nothing to say about untestable hypotheses, so the entire premise falls apart. If we don't know which things have subjective experience and to what degree then there's no way to tell whether it's an evolutionary advantage or not, so there's no way to know whether it evolved or not.

Quote:

we're just wallowing in pointless philosophical sophistry


The hard problem of consciousness is pointless philosophical sophistry itself. The philosopher invents the problem ("why are living beings conscious while non-living beings aren't?") and then wastes millennia looking for a solution.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: InsultingLizard]
    #26480076 - 02/11/20 12:15 PM (4 years, 5 days ago)

Quote:

InsultingLizard said:
Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Quote:

InsultingLizard said:
So, saying "consciousness cannot have evolved" is as useful a statement as "Russell's teapot cannot have accreted from the solar nebula". Yeah, maybe. I don't know. Let's start by showing that the thing exists, yeah?





Given what we know about the people and animals around us, to suppose that consciousness might not exist is less reasonable than assuming it does. So we can make consciousness a given. There is no use arguing about, or proving, whether consciousness exists. Just as in mathematics we have to assume axioms that cannot be proven.




I don't agree. If we were talking about sentience (the capacity of an organism to respond to stimuli in its environment) then that would be a different matter, but "consciousness" in this sense is basically interchangeable with "soul". To me at least, that humans have souls and AIs don't (or can't) is not obvious.

As for axioms, the point of axioms is that they're tools that help you reason soundly. Science already has axioms such as "the universe is not consciously trying to fool experimenters". If you don't make that assumption you can't do science, because you can't trust any of your observations.
"Some living beings and only living beings have consciousness" would be an inappropriate axiom because it doesn't help you discover anything new. Also, when you make something an axiom you're implicitly accepting that you're no longer going to bother checking if it's true. That's a very dangerous game to play.




.  Well I do agree. Firstly is consciousness a noun/ object or a process/verb? This gets ignored. If its a verb what is doing the action? Does it require a 'self' to perform the action? (If so we not only have consciousness without a cause, but also some or many disincarnate 'selves' or 'self').
.    The alternatives are that it is a noun, an abstraction (like numbers), or like 'god' is allowed to totally escape having a definition. If it doesn't have a definition anyone can say whatever they want about it. If it is an object then other problems arise.
.  Seems to me some folks are so desperate to have answers that they make stuff up. And others are so desperate to get credit for discovering something new, that they try to defy accepted "wisdom" by thinking they have discovered something new. This is seen all the time when it comes to discovering a pattern in the prime numbers.
.    Indeed it seems most folks are a bit like this. The exceptions stand out:Lao Tzu, Socrates, Zen teachers*, Buddha**, and Rene Magritte. They were all comfortable with mystery and not knowing.
.  But the world is in love with guys like Jordan Peterson that pretend to know everything. In fact this is shown by the story of why Socrates was put to death by the Athenian Greeks, who supposedly were a culture based on reason, & on which much of our own culture is supposed to be based.


.  *  https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Zen%2C+paradox+contradiction&t=h_&ia=web

.  **  https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Buddha+questions%2C+not+answered&t=h_&ia=web


Edited by laughingdog (02/11/20 12:19 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,825
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: InsultingLizard]
    #26480080 - 02/11/20 12:19 PM (4 years, 5 days ago)

Well you raise an interesting point -- and also a crucial one. The dominant assumption of biology, psychology, neuroscience and philosophy is that consciousness is an epiphenomenon, as you point out, but if they cannot even make a measurement, I agree that there is no basis for calling it an epiphenomenon, or anything at all. So I now see your objection to the article. I definitely agree it makes a lot of unacceptable assumptions.

And I further agree with you about the hard problem. It's backwards if it's anything, and it may not even be relevant enough to call backwards.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #26480100 - 02/11/20 12:36 PM (4 years, 5 days ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Well you raise an interesting point -- and also a crucial one. The dominant assumption of biology, psychology, neuroscience and philosophy is that consciousness is an epiphenomenon, as you point out, but if they cannot even make a measurement, I agree that there is no basis for calling it an epiphenomenon,




.    Exactly both "Phenomenon" and the word "epiphenomenon" explain nothing, IMO.

"Phenomenon definition is - an observable fact or event. How to use phenomenon in a sentence. Can phenomena be used as a singular?"  *

"An epiphenomenon (plural: epiphenomena) is a secondary phenomenon that occurs alongside or in parallel to a primary phenomenon. The word has two senses: one that connotes known causation and one that connotes absence of causation or reservation of judgment about it."  **

Calling "Consciousness" a "fact" by using a fancy word contributes nothing.
and
Calling "Consciousness" an event implies its over
So
Likewise calling "Consciousness" a secondary fact or event is also useless.



https://duckduckgo.com/?q=phenomenon+definition&t=h_&ia=definition

**Epiphenomenon - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenon

------------
So the question remains what is consciousness?

.  Firstly is consciousness a noun/ object or a process/verb? This gets ignored. If its a verb what is doing the action? Does it require a 'self' to perform the action? (If so we not only have consciousness without a cause, but also some or many disincarnate 'selves' or 'self').
.    The alternatives are that it is a noun, an abstraction (like numbers), or like 'god' is allowed to totally escape having a definition. If it doesn't have a definition anyone can say whatever they want about it. If it is an object then other problems arise.
.  Seems to me some folks are so desperate to have answers that they make stuff up. And others are so desperate to get credit for discovering something new, that they try to defy accepted "wisdom" by thinking they have discovered something new. This is seen all the time when it comes to discovering a pattern in the prime numbers.
.    Indeed it seems most folks are a bit like this. The exceptions stand out:Lao Tzu, Socrates, Zen teachers*, Buddha**, and Rene Magritte. They were all comfortable with mystery and not knowing.
.  But the world is in love with guys like Jordan Peterson that pretend to know everything. In fact this is shown by the story of why Socrates was put to death by the Athenian Greeks, who supposedly were a culture based on reason, & on which much of our own culture is supposed to be based.


.  *  https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Zen%2C+paradox+contradiction&t=h_&ia=web

.  **  https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Buddha+questions%2C+not+answered&t=h_&ia=web


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: laughingdog]
    #26480109 - 02/11/20 12:40 PM (4 years, 5 days ago)

And the other possibility ""An epiphenomenon (plural: epiphenomena) is a secondary phenomenon that occurs alongside or in parallel to a primary phenomenon. The word has two senses: one that connotes known causation and one that connotes absence of causation or reservation of judgment about it."  **

If "epiphenomenon" is taken to mean 'absence of causation', then of course calling consciousness an "epiphenomenon", just like the term 'god' takes one 'beyond' both science and reason, and makes introducing rational argument or discourse useless.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,825
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: laughingdog]
    #26480117 - 02/11/20 12:49 PM (4 years, 5 days ago)

Indeed.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: InsultingLizard]
    #26480123 - 02/11/20 12:54 PM (4 years, 5 days ago)

Quote:

InsultingLizard said:
..... If we don't know which things have subjective experience and to what degree then there's no way to tell whether it's an evolutionary advantage or not, so there's no way to know whether it evolved or not.....




.    If we do assume 'consciousness' occurs (not exists) in minds as an increased ability, (as we go 'up' the 'evolutionary ladder') to make predictions (imagine future outcomes), & to model a boundary to a body and its actions-within its simulation of reality or the external environment, & an an increased ability to remember, then so called 'consciousness' very clearly DOES have evolutionary advantage.
.    This contradicts Bernardo Kastrup both as regards 'consciousness', both in regards to evolution and its being preexisting. As well as the notion that is mysterious and somehow absolute. And being absolute is actually the hidden agenda IMO.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: laughingdog]
    #26480129 - 02/11/20 12:59 PM (4 years, 5 days ago)

correction
"As well as the notion that is mysterious and somehow absolute. And being absolute is actually the hidden agenda IMO."
should be
"As well as the notion that "it" is mysterious and somehow absolute. And being absolute is actually the hidden agenda IMO."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineInsultingLizard
Stranger

Registered: 01/04/20
Posts: 546
Last seen: 4 months, 11 days
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: laughingdog]
    #26480167 - 02/11/20 01:22 PM (4 years, 5 days ago)

Quote:

Well I do agree. Firstly is consciousness a noun/ object or a process/verb? This gets ignored. If its a verb what is doing the action?




"Consciousness" is a noun that refers to a process. This is analogous to other nouns such as "movement" and "computation".
Obviously consciousness is a function performed by brains, or at least nervous systems.

Quote:

Does it require a 'self' to perform the action? (If so we not only have consciousness without a cause, but also some or many disincarnate 'selves' or 'self').




I don't follow. What do you mean by "self"?
It would seem that consciousness starts spontaneously in brains as they mature. This is certainly the case for other cognitive functions such as theory of mind. So I don't see what you mean by having no cause.

Quote:

If we do assume 'consciousness' occurs (not exists) in minds as an increased ability, (as we go 'up' the 'evolutionary ladder') to make predictions (imagine future outcomes), & to model a boundary to a body and its actions-within its simulation of reality or the external environment




You're talking about abstract thought, though, not consciousness (qualia). All you need to anticipate future events is having an accurate model of reality and good data to feed to that model and make predictions. This doesn't require subjective experience, computers can be programmed to do this easily enough.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: laughingdog]
    #26480175 - 02/11/20 01:28 PM (4 years, 5 days ago)

.  We see the same thing with so called "Intelligent design". Bernardo has simply substituted the term "consciousness" for the term "God" in order to create an absolute.
Why? -  because mindfulness, which realizes there is a spectrum of how aware we are, and that it takes work, to move up the scale, is something he and his like wish to avoid.
If is absolute, and independent of himself, then of course he is excused, from making any effort or continual efforts.

"Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins". Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Intelligent design - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_designhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: laughingdog]
    #26480208 - 02/11/20 01:45 PM (4 years, 5 days ago)

.  What do I mean by self? This phrase above covers it: "& to model a boundary to a body and its actions-within its simulation of reality or the external environment," (within the brain).
.  Self recognition is also taken to be an aspect. Thus at times the mirror test has been used to test this (debated now).
.  And of course the mind must separately track its 'own' actions.

---

You say "Consciousness" is a noun that refers to a process. This is analogous to other nouns such as "movement" and "computation".
Obviously consciousness is a function performed by brains, or at least nervous systems. "
You contradict Bernardo here--ok. And attempt to make a better definition.
I'm not convinced by your briefly worded suggestion.
I see no noun or object at all.
Does an ant or termite  colony have a mind or self or "Consciousness"? Yet the colony functions as if it did.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=termite+mounds+Africa&t=hz&iax=images&ia=images

----------

You say : "You're talking about abstract thought, though, not consciousness (qualia). "

I "talked" previously above, about false awakenings in an attempt to shed some light on this notion.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Following AI: Consciousness as an interpretive process for data! (aren't I fancy!)
( 1 2 3 all )
PsilocinSam 6,828 58 03/18/05 11:45 AM
by gettinjiggywithit
* Consciousness at the Planck Scale?
( 1 2 all )
DiploidM 5,620 32 10/02/04 09:30 PM
by Diploid
* (Human) Consciousness
( 1 2 3 4 all )
trendalM 6,239 64 01/03/04 05:49 PM
by Deiymiyan
* Timothy Leary's Eight Circuits of Consciousness imstoned420 4,248 8 07/10/13 11:00 AM
by redgreenvines
* how can collective consciousness exist?
( 1 2 all )
kaiowas 5,391 30 11/11/13 05:23 AM
by absols
* Consciousness, Physics, and Spirituality. Reggaejunkiejew 2,228 6 01/16/17 07:38 PM
by Middleman
* are we going to stop evolving?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Turd 6,306 106 02/24/09 03:37 PM
by Silversoul
* Do plants have consciousness?
( 1 2 3 all )
Jellric 3,391 50 07/29/04 09:33 AM
by CJay

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,608 topic views. 1 members, 7 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.022 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 14 queries.