• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Consciousness

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I'm just trying to get you to tell me where the cutoff is now days.

Your basis for 'cutoff' is based on your agenda and a rejection of science. You have only offered assertions and no references to backu your assertions.
When I was a child science held only humans were conscious and most people believed this didn't apply to babies. Over the years more and more creatures have been blessed with this as yet defined condition. So you implied toads are conscious. How about fish? Cockroaches? Gnats? Mites?

Already answered this. What you were taught as a child and believe now has no relationship with the current knowledge of science. In references and prvious posts I have demonstrated the pro gressive evolution of consciousness and intelligence and all you have responded to is random assertions, no references and nothing to support your argument.
Where is the cut off now days?

There is no specific cut off except for the requirement of a complex nervous system, because consciousness and intelligence is progressive and evolving based on the increase in the complexity of the nervous system. Again life forms without a nervous system do not have consciousness nor intelligence.
If you can answer this I have a follow-up question; "Is the same test for consciousness given to every species?".

Yes,

Obviously a ground squirrel might do very poorly on a consciousness test designed for crows.

The ground squirrel's consciousness and intelligence will be evaluated by the same standards and definitions as the Crow.
I can't imagine much overlap in the testing for dogs and whales.

Science is not based on what you immagine. Dogs and whales consciousness and intelligence will be evaluated by the same standards and definitions.
You do realize any such testing can also be performed on a single cell slime mold and if a man or a monkey can pass so could it.

No because as state many times the first criteria is complex nervous system. You are apparently ignoring this as repeated in numerous post.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
More nonsense.

I don't have to prove a negative.

You do not have to nor can you prove anything concerning the sciences of consciousness and intelligence. You just have to present a coherent argument with sources to support your assertions and personal opinions.

Actually it is not a negative your supporting, it is your argument from the basis of your 'beliefs' and assertions concerning consciousness and intelligence.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Already answered this. What you were taught as a child and believe now has no relationship with the current knowledge of science. In references and prvious posts I have demonstrated the pro gressive evolution of consciousness and intelligence and all you have responded to is random assertions, no references and nothing to support your argument.

No. I've asserted nothing. I've merely implied you know nothing.

I asked questions. I asked where the cut off is. What species has science discovered to be conscious? How does consciousness vary between species other than in amplitude?

Why must you twist the words of those you deem "creationists"? Why can't you answer even the simplest questions to support your beliefs and/ or actual science?

Are you aware that cockroaches have been glued onto the controls of little cars that they can then operate to get to food as early as the 1950's? What is the IQ of the smartest roach. What is the intelligence level of an AI program.

Of course you won't answer any question or provide any evidence. You'll scoff at intelligence applying to AI so what is the AIQ of AI where a = artificial?

You don't know what consciousness is and then assume intelligence is what it does.

I believe any competent neuroscientist would tell you that you are way off base.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I asked questions. I asked where the cut off is. What species has science discovered to be conscious? How does consciousness vary between species other than in amplitude?

I gave you the cut off that consciousness and intelligence requires a complex nervous system. There are other hall marks in the evolution of consciousness such as
Why must you twist the words of those you deem "creationists"? Why can't you answer even the simplest questions to support your beliefs and/ or actual science?
I answered all questions with references in the history of the thread. You have offered nothing of substance and no references.

You reject the sciences of evolution, ad that sets the stage. I believe in Theistic Evolution and I am thus a Creationist.
Are you aware that cockroaches have been glued onto the controls of little cars that they can then operate to get to food as early as the 1950's? What is the IQ of the smartest roach. What is the intelligence level of an AI program.

Of course you won't answer any question or provide any evidence. You'll scoff at intelligence applying to AI so what is the AIQ of AI where a = artificial?

II have answered your questions and posted references with evidence from the beginning of the thread...
You don't know what consciousness is and then assume intelligence is what it does.

Consciousness is as science defines and describes,
I believe any competent neuroscientist would tell you that you are way off base.
Please cite and do not assert second hand. You have cited not outside your opinions.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
I gave you the cut off that consciousness and intelligence requires a complex nervous system. There are other hall marks in the evolution of consciousness such as

I answered all questions with references in the history of the thread. You have offered nothing of substance and no references.

You reject the sciences of evolution, ad that sets the stage. I believe in Theistic Evolution and I am thus a Creationist.


II have answered your questions and posted references with evidence from the beginning of the thread...


Consciousness is as science defines and describes,

Please cite and do not assert second hand. You have cited not outside your opinions.


Efforts to define consciousness as if one were examining it in a lab, viewed from the outside, are necessarily inadequate and doomed to failure. There is no Archimedean point, no God’s eye view, from which man may observe the phenomenon of consciousness. We are within the world looking out, and failure to acknowledge this can only lead our understanding into blind alleys. Only by raising the level of our own consciousness, rather than reducing it entirely to physical processes, can we hope to further out understanding of our place in the universe, and our relationship with the forces that guide and direct all things.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Efforts to define consciousness as if one were examining it in a lab, viewed from the outside, are necessarily inadequate and doomed to failure.

This is an extreme philosophical view really not justified considering the research and discoveries. You keep repeating this as if it has nay meaning as far as science goes, and not meaningful. Science gets much of it's knowledge from the 'outside' and it still stands.

The problem like other unfounded philosophical critics is they are little more than 'back seat drivers' and not offering anything of substance. Also as mentioned before you need to offer an alternative hypothesis, which none is forthcoming.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
This is an extreme philosophical view really not justified considering the research and discoveries. You keep repeating this as if it has nay meaning as far as science goes, and not meaningful. Science gets much of it's knowledge from the 'outside' and it still stands.

The problem like other unfounded philosophical critics is they are little more than 'back seat drivers' and not offering anything of substance. Also as mentioned before you need to offer an alternative hypothesis, which none is forthcoming.
In your opinion, what is the best explanation of how subjective experience can be caused by matter?
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Your basis for 'cutoff' is based on your agenda and a rejection of science.

Or more likely your refusal to address my questions is you don't know what consciousness is. I'll give you a clue; there are no real "levels" of consciousness, either something has it or it is dead, never alive, or yet to be. It's on or off and all reality is digital, not analog.

In references and prvious posts I have demonstrated the pro gressive evolution of consciousness and intelligence and all you have responded to is random assertions, no references and nothing to support your argument.

NO. My argument was irrelevant. I asked you for your argument and you never made one. You've merely asserted that sticking probes in braions tells you everything we need to know about consciousness.

You are mistaken. It merely provides a few details about how the brain is wired.

Again life forms without a nervous system do not have consciousness nor intelligence.

Then you agree with me that a mite is fully conscious!!!


Sticking electrodes in gnats is a delicate endeavor. I'm surprised someone mustta devised an IQ test for them.

No because as state many times the first criteria is complex nervous system. You are apparently ignoring this as repeated in numerous post.

No. I'm not ignoring it. You are ignoring the reasons I believe a slime molds, oak trees, and "lower" life forms should be considered conscious.

Believers simply can't even see opposing evidence. They just incorporate all sensory input into their belief systems. Every argument, every fact, and even every anomaly supports their beliefs.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Or more likely your refusal to address my questions is you don't know what consciousness is. I'll give you a clue; there are no real "levels" of consciousness, either something has it or it is dead, never alive, or yet to be. It's on or off and all reality is digital, not analog.



NO. My argument was irrelevant. I asked you for your argument and you never made one. You've merely asserted that sticking probes in braions tells you everything we need to know about consciousness.

You are mistaken. It merely provides a few details about how the brain is wired.
I have provided numerous references to support the scientific view of consciousness and you have ignored them as in the following foolish question based on your ignorance.

It is obvious you reject science and evolution as a given, therefore there is nothing you can offer
Then you agree with me that a mite is fully conscious!!!

No the mite does not have an advance complex nervous system, nor qualify for fuly conscious, because it lacks secondary consciousness and intelligence.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
You reject the sciences of evolution, ad that sets the stage. I believe in Theistic Evolution and I am thus a Creationist.

I do not consider Darwin science. I do not consider the assumptions of what is called "sciences of Evolution, by you to be "science". I believe there are far simpler explanations than "survival of the fittest" and "gradual change in species" than what most current biologists believe.

If there is a God I seriously doubt (S)He creates any unfit individuals to be lunch for the more fit. While all individuals are born to die we all have a chance at being successful with consciousness and luck. "Survival of the fittest" is a 19th century excuse to kill those who get in the way or rock the boat. Gradual change in species is a misinterpretation of the fossil record that supports the nonsense that some are created for food.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
In your opinion, what is the best explanation of how subjective experience can be caused by matter?
As a result of complex advanced nervous system as in humans and the octopus. At present there is no other explanation that can form a falsifiable hypothesis based on the evidence. For example secondary consciousness has been only observed in advanced evolved complex nervous systems in higher animals. Dreaming is a subjective factor that can be observed electrically in the brain and language is also a factor only present in higher animals with secondary consciousness.

There is no other option that fits the evidence. One can vaguely appeal to supernatural source by 'arguing from ignorance' concerning what science does not know, but there is absolutely no objective evidence to justify this conclusion. The fact that there remains unanswered questions doe not justify an alternate hypothesis.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
In your opinion, what is the best explanation of how subjective experience can be caused by matter?
As a result of complex advanced nervous system as in humans and the octopus. At present there is no other explanation that can form a falsifiable hypothesis based on the evidence. For example secondary consciousness has been only observed in advanced evolved complex nervous systems in higher animals. Dreaming is a subjective factor that can be observed electrically in the brain and language is also a factor only present in higher animals with secondary consciousness.

There is no other option that fits the evidence. One can vaguely appeal to supernatural source by 'arguing from ignorance' concerning what science does not know, but there is absolutely no objective evidence to justify this conclusion. The fact that there remains unanswered questions doe not justify an alternate hypothesis.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Consciousness is as science defines and describes,

Well...

Yes and no.

Remember I am the guy who believes all people make sense all of the time in terms of their premises? Just because cutting edge science has a definition of "consciousness" does not make any of their premises to be correct. Intelligence is not what consciousness does and does not even exist as a condition. If it were a condition (and some of its characteristics are essentially conditions) it would not be related to consciousness at all but rather to the wiring of the brain. There are many reasons some are faster than others but it has less to do with consciousness and more to do with the brain.

You have no evidence to support your contention. Citing studies that show research into the brain, other species and behavior and trying to extrapolate from this the meaning of "consciousness" means nothing at all without any ability to define and quantify any of the characteristics of consciousness. It looks like an attempt to remove God, chance, and ignorance from abstractions that have no real meaning anyway. Someday maybe we will understand consciousness if we stay the course with reductionistic science but I seriously doubt it. I don't believe even most parts of consciousness can be reduced to experiment using current thought. This isn't so much to say we're on the wrong road as to say there may be no road accessible to reductionistic science.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I do not consider Darwin science. I do not consider the assumptions of what is called "sciences of Evolution, by you to be "science". I believe there are far simpler explanations than "survival of the fittest" and "gradual change in species" than what most current biologists believe.

If there is a God I seriously doubt (S)He creates any unfit individuals to be lunch for the more fit. While all individuals are born to die we all have a chance at being successful with consciousness and luck. "Survival of the fittest" is a 19th century excuse to kill those who get in the way or rock the boat. Gradual change in species is a misinterpretation of the fossil record that supports the nonsense that some are created for food.

This confirms your rejection of science for an ancient religious agenda, which eliminates any possibility of a coherent argument on your part.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Well...

Yes and no.

Remember I am the guy who believes all people make sense all of the time in terms of their premises? Just because cutting edge science has a definition of "consciousness" does not make any of their premises to be correct. Intelligence is not what consciousness does and does not even exist as a condition. If it were a condition (and some of its characteristics are essentially conditions) it would not be related to consciousness at all but rather to the wiring of the brain. There are many reasons some are faster than others but it has less to do with consciousness and more to do with the brain.

You have no evidence to support your contention. Citing studies that show research into the brain, other species and behavior and trying to extrapolate from this the meaning of "consciousness" means nothing at all without any ability to define and quantify any of the characteristics of consciousness. It looks like an attempt to remove God, chance, and ignorance from abstractions that have no real meaning anyway. Someday maybe we will understand consciousness if we stay the course with reductionistic science but I seriously doubt it. I don't believe even most parts of consciousness can be reduced to experiment using current thought. This isn't so much to say we're on the wrong road as to say there may be no road accessible to reductionistic science.

Again . . . This confirms your rejection of science for an ancient religious agenda, which eliminates any possibility of a coherent argument on your part.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
This confirms your rejection of science for an ancient religious agenda, which eliminates any possibility of a coherent argument on your part.

AGAIN. Maybe larger print will help;

I reject Darwin and superstition, not science.

All theory is based on axioms and definitions. I reject all of Darwin's premises. His definitions are poor and overly abstract. I seriously doubt he was right about anything. He was a 19th century great who lacked modern knowledge.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Until there is a scientific definition of consciousness with the concomitant quantifiable variables any discussion about it is philosophical in nature Consciousness is inside us. It is not the output affects that science can observe in the third person. The output is removed from consciousness. I can be conscious that I have a good hand in poker, so I alter the output of my body language so I can bluff. Those who think conscious can be seem from the outside are fooled.

The scientific method is not designed to address consciousness. The method only allows third person observation of the output affects from consciousness, and not the original internal awareness, which cannot be seen from the outside. If I was playing poker and I had a bad hand, I can learn to output a sense of confidence, to bluff the other players. You cannot depend on output without knowledge of the internal tricks of consciousness; conscious and unconscious.

I think therefore I am, is about the internal process of thinking. It is not me looking in the air or talking so others they can have an idea, where my consciousness was directed. The output is for the consciousness of others. Inside is where my consciousness lies. An Automaton can look conscious, based on output. Those who assume there is only the outside world may be fooled. Output affects, only, is why science cannot agree on consciousness.

Consciousness can observe material reality, through the five senses. But it can also sense the internal effects that that sensory input can induce; feeling, ideas, analysis, etc. If I watch a sunset, I may feel indifferent or in awe. Both are internal affects to the sensory input, that others cannot see, unless I output something for them to infer with their consciousness.

To define consciousness you need to look and stay internal, which is beyond the philosophy of science. Consciousness may be the last frontier of science, since the philosophy of science cannot go there, until it expands its philosophy to cover internal affects, that we are conscious of, from the inside.

In my own experience, one of the main sources confusion and awareness, in terms of consciousness, is the internal observation, you cannot see from the outside, which is we have two centers of consciousness. There is the ego, which is the center of the conscious mind, and inner self which is the center of the unconscious mind. These do not always agree and by differing, one can better notice your own ego conscious, being a reflection.

This awareness is often more common in neurosis, where a person may develop, for example, a fear or phobia. They are aware of this fear, but it seems to have a mind of its own, that they cannot control. The phobia may have a hidden logic to it, that the therapists tries to isolate. But it can divide their consciousness into two zones. It can isolate the ego and also help differentiate itself, as being separate; blessing in disguise.

In more advanced applications, the inner self can be more aware or more conscious of things than the ego. The ego may not be conscious of subliminal data that the inner self has for inference and data processing. However, it will try to output, for the ego, in it own fast language, that you learn to understand.

The physical basis for consciousness appears to be connected to entropy and not matter or energy. The 2nd law says the entropy of the universe has to increase. The brain lowers entropy, using 90% of it metabolic energy pumping and exchanging ions. This increases the potential of the 2nd law. All things that can fire neurons, from thinking to sensory input, help the second law. Consciousness sort of helps the 2nd law, with an urge to direct our sensors and thoughts to help the second law, with all these having a natural; instinctive, push behind it.

Entropy is not as tangible as matter and energy, although it makes use of these; entropic states. Entropy increase is more like the need to increase complexity, which is nebulous, but useful for consciousness, evolution and adaptation. Increased complexity is very flexible; any paths, in terms of how it has to end, like consciousness. Entropy increase has the weird affect of making energy disappear. It may then be stored in quantum affects; ESP.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
19th century scientists were the best the planet has ever produced and if any one of them were alive today I believe (s)he would recant.
Being the best is not the issue. They still lacked the modern knowledge of science, which you reject. You are still stuck in a Newtonian world with an ancient religious agenda without science.
 
Top