Question for Atheists...

[mikkel_the_dane]

OK, so what is hard about it beyond "simply" finding the neural correlates of conscious states?

Nothing as long as you accept that part of the human understanding is subjective and can't be made objective.

 

[Bird123]

The energy from the electrical company does: it was made by humans to supply our needs. The energy from the sun, however, has no purpose that I can see.

A nice claim. Any evidence?

The chemical bond between atoms has a lot of function. But no intelligent agent is involved, so it has no purpose.

Once again, you take a very human-centric view of purpose. Yes, *we* can use that information for the purposes *we* decide. But that does not mean there is a purpose independent of us.

For there to be a purpose, there has to be an intelligent agent involved. Most function has no such agent, and so has no purpose.

And you assume the answers before you even start. Is that really the path of wisdom?

I did not assume anything at the start of my journey to Discover what actually is. I just had my need to know. I am reporting some of what I Discovered.

I see your view way too narrow. Look for the Big Picture. Ebb and Flow of true knowledge. It will add up in time if you seek and put the pieces of the puzzle together. Even the people factor adds up perfectly. The people factor is more complicated simply because there are many more variables.

God is actually Someone. Yes, Eternity has purpose. It's easy to see when one Discovers what is going on.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

You assume you are wise and have something to offer all others. You over-estimate yourself here, and don't seem capable of understanding this. You keep trying to teach ideas that have no use for thinkers. You're like a drug dealer who doesn't understand why former addicts non-users aren't buying your product. You're just flummoxed. It's gone way over your head why your beliefs are limited to you only, and not usable by others.

Being open to possibilities does not mean a thinker will accept them. That is why thinkers require evidence, not possibilities. You lack evidence.


By not assuming the things you want to believe are true, and being honest in a search for truth. This is why thinkers don;t agree with what you claim is true: lack of evidence.

Religion has corrupted your thinking. I am not selling a product. I am not looking to be accepted. I am placing Truth in the world. What anyone does with Truth is entirely up to them. What I have are Truths not beliefs. I have pointed to where one can Discover all this for themselves, yet you want me to do it for you. Why? Because you seek beliefs.

I Love Thinkers!!! I am one of them. On the other hand Thinkers needs to think rather than merely accept anything. Burden of Proof rests on the one who Seeks the knowledge. One who seeks does not have to be convinced of anything.

The choice of what you seek has never ever been up to me. On the other hand, I have pointed a good starting point for those who do seek.

Pretty simple, right??

What is it that you really seek??

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[F1fan]

Religion has corrupted your thinking.

I'm not a theist, so you have made another false claim. Notice you make this claim yet offer no evidence, no explanation. So it is irrelevant.

I am not selling a product. I am not looking to be accepted. I am placing Truth in the world.

Your "truth" is the product you are peddling. And you admit it. And it is against the forum rules.

What anyone does with Truth is entirely up to them. What I have are Truths not beliefs. I have pointed to where one can Discover all this for themselves, yet you want me to do it for you. Why? Because you seek beliefs.

False, I seek truth, and what you claim isn't fact-based, it's dogma.

I Love Thinkers!!! I am one of them.

Anyone with language ability can think. This doesn't mean they can reason, which is skilled thinking via rules. Critical thinkers follow evidence to sound conclusions. What you post is baseless claims without evidence, and offer no explanations why you are correct. You just expect others to accept what you say, as if you are a god that is beyond error.

On the other hand Thinkers needs to think rather than merely accept anything. Burden of Proof rests on the one who Seeks the knowledge. One who seeks does not have to be convinced of anything.

Yet you violate this very statement. You make claims of "truth" and offer no evidence. THAT is expecting others to blindly accept what you post. Me challenging you is because you have the burden of proff to demonstrate your claims are true, yet you fail to deliver this evidence or explanation.

The choice of what you seek has never ever been up to me.

This is correct, I have no interest in you being my guru.

On the other hand, I have pointed a good starting point for those who do seek.

Seek what, to be your follower? You aren't giving anyone something to think about, you make typical, superficial religious claims, and that's it.

Pretty simple, right??

Your thinking is quite simplistic.

What is it that you really seek??

I seek what is true about how things are. I follow evidence. I don't seek dogma.

 

[anna.]

And what, precisely, is 'consciousness'? What is 'hard' about it? Why would you expect there to be anything past physics (well, and chemistry and biology) involved in consciousness?

One of the biggest problems in the study of consciousness is that nobody seems to be able to agree on what is being studied. For example, is an earthworm conscious or not? How about a bacterium? All living things? How about a thermostat (Chalmers argued they are conscious)? Is a person conscious when dreaming? Under 'conscious sedation'? Under anesthesia? During non-REM sleep? Are plants conscious?

Until the definitional questions are answered, no progress on the question can be made. Until we are all talking about the same phenomenon, only confusion will exist in the subject.

It seems like we're just going around in circles here, so much so that it's hard to remember this conversation with @Heyo started with me remarking on a meme he'd posted. As I said at the time, I don't usually get into theism/atheism discussions, which theme runs underneath the whole subject of consciousness, for obvious (to me, at least) reasons. I don't have any animus towards atheism/atheists or agnosticism/agnostics or humanists or materialists (sorry, my knowledge of the range of possible terms is limited).

My cognitive dissonance comes from knowing a little more than the average person how our 3 lb. lump of fat, protein, carb, water and salt operates, and knowing too that if neuroscience can't adequately define, test for, or explain consciousness, then the rest of us can do little more than conjecture and settle into the most comfortable place our...well... consciousness allows us to be. There are scientist who don't think humanity will ever be able to adequately test for and explain consciousness. For me, it's hard to get past a degree of duality, to what degree I don't even know myself. But no one has convinced me that they know how to explain how the mind experiences subjective experience, because they always come back to re-explaining what we already know - not what we don't know. I appreciate the effort and thanks for your time, but no one here is getting to there.

 

[Heyo]

It seems like we're just going around in circles here, so much so that it's hard to remember this conversation with @Heyo started with me remarking on a meme he'd posted. As I said at the time, I don't usually get into theism/atheism discussions, which theme runs underneath the whole subject of consciousness, for obvious (to me, at least) reasons. I don't have any animus towards atheism/atheists or agnosticism/agnostics or humanists or materialists (sorry, my knowledge of the range of possible terms is limited).

My cognitive dissonance comes from knowing a little more than the average person how our 3 lb. lump of fat, protein, carb, water and salt operates, and knowing too that if neuroscience can't adequately define, test for, or explain consciousness, then the rest of us can do little more than conjecture and settle into the most comfortable place our...well... consciousness allows us to be. There are scientist who don't think humanity will ever be able to adequately test for and explain consciousness. For me, it's hard to get past a degree of duality, to what degree I don't even know myself. But no one has convinced me that they know how to explain how the mind experiences subjective experience, because they always come back to re-explaining what we already know - not what we don't know. I appreciate the effort and thanks for your time, but no one here is getting to there.

No-one is getting there as long as we keep on debating where to start. What about trying out a thing or two and see where it leads? In fact, people did try. Behavioural scientists/psychologists invented the mirror test over 50 years ago. What do think about it as a lower boundary for consciousness?

 

[Nakosis]

No-one is getting there as long as we keep on debating where to start. What about trying out a thing or two and see where it leads? In fact, people did try. Behavioural scientists/psychologists invented the mirror test over 50 years ago. What do think about it as a lower boundary for consciousness?

The problem with the mirror test, assuming consciousness is some form of self-awareness, what if some species don't rely on visual clues as much as humans do to develop the idea of a self?

It may be as simple as the ability to feel pain. Pain one could equate with the qualia that would be part of self awareness. So anything that is capable of feeling pain could be "self-aware".

I think consciousness has to be defined to be more than a simple ability to react to a change in the environment.

Most common ideas of consciousness could be successfully applied to a computer AI. So whatever we define consciousness as would have to be more than what a computer system is capable of.

I.E. experience pain.

 

[Polymath257]

The problem with the mirror test, assuming consciousness is some form of self-awareness, what if some species don't rely on visual clues as much as humans do to develop the idea of a self?

It may be as simply as the ability to feel pain. Pain one could equate with the qualia that would be part of self awareness. So anything that is capable of feeling pain could be "self-aware".

I think consciousness has to be defined to be more than a simple ability to react to a change in the environment.

Most common ideas of consciousness could be successfully applied to a computer AI. So whatever we define consciousness as would have to be more than what a computer system is capable of.

I.E. experience pain.

Are you simply assuming that anything a computer system is able to do is NOT consciousness? Why make that assumption?

How do you know a computer system will never be able to experience pain?

What is pain after all but a negative feedback response to change behavior? If a computer system has that, is it experiencing pain?

And you still need to define things a bit better. Do bacteria experience pain? They certainly respond to negative stimuli and avoid such. Or maybe a plant? Do plants experience pain? They can often respond in a variety of ways to injury, including the release of chemicals that signal other plants to increase defenses.

 

[Nakosis]

Are you simply assuming that anything a computer system is able to do is NOT consciousness? Why make that assumption?

How do you know a computer system will never be able to experience pain?

What is pain after all but a negative feedback response to change behavior? If a computer system has that, is it experiencing pain?

And you still need to define things a bit better. Do bacteria experience pain? They certainly respond to negative stimuli and avoid such. Or maybe a plant? Do plants experience pain? They can often respond in a variety of ways to injury, including the release of chemicals that signal other plants to increase defenses.

No, I'm fine with the idea of computer consciousness at same point, though I think we'd have to understand consciousness fully before we could create an AI system capable of it. Otherwise I'm not sure how we'd know the difference between an AI system emulating consciousness and actually experiencing consciousness.

To understand consciousness I think we have to clearly define it to know what it is we're trying to understand as a first step. Yes, maybe the ability to feel is not enough. However, understanding how we experience feeling vs the mechanics of how we feel seems to be the gap.

 

[anna.]

No-one is getting there as long as we keep on debating where to start. What about trying out a thing or two and see where it leads? In fact, people did try. Behavioural scientists/psychologists invented the mirror test over 50 years ago. What do think about it as a lower boundary for consciousness?

I think the mirror test is more ambiguous than you might think. See this:

https://www.npr.org/2020/12/17/947552020/mirror-mirror-on-the-wall-can-you-reveal-an-animals-inner-world-at-all

That said, I wouldn't disagree that some animals are capable of a certain awareness but I don't see how you're relating it to human consciousness other than evolutionary ramifications.

What if we ask the question put by neuroscientist Stanislas Dehaene?

In that sense, the behaviorists were right: as a method [for a pure, truth revealing procedure], introspection provides a shaky ground for a science of psychology, because no amount of introspection will tell us how the mind works. However, as a measure, introspection still constitutes… the only, platform on which to build a science of consciousness, because it supplies a crucial half of the equation—namely, how subjects feel about some experience (however wrong they are about the ground truth). To attain a scientific understanding of consciousness, we cognitive neuroscientists "just" have to determine the other half of the equation: Which objective neurobiological events systematically underlie a person's subjective experience?

I got that quote from Dr. Gregg Henriques, who goes on to say:

But what it does mean is that the unique experience of being-in-the-world for each of us as particular individuals is in some important ways an “extra-scientific” domain. That is, our idiographic experience of being resides outside of the purview of scientific knowledge. It is important to note that there are other important “extra-scientific” domains, such as questions of ethics and morality. Science tells us about what likely “is” from a third-person general point of view; that is, it builds models about the behavior of the universe across different dimensions and levels of analysis. But science does not tell us what ought to be. Nor does it give us a definitive theory of the unique, idiographic experience of being-in-the-world from a first-person perspective. Indeed, science struggles to do this both ontologically and epistemologically.


I guess I keep coming back this: to this point, neuroscience cannot explain consciousness with the tools they currently have at their disposal. If they could, they would've done so. If they can't do it, how can we?

 

[Bird123]

I'm not a theist, so you have made another false claim. Notice you make this claim yet offer no evidence, no explanation. So it is irrelevant.

Your "truth" is the product you are peddling. And you admit it. And it is against the forum rules.

False, I seek truth, and what you claim isn't fact-based, it's dogma.

Anyone with language ability can think. This doesn't mean they can reason, which is skilled thinking via rules. Critical thinkers follow evidence to sound conclusions. What you post is baseless claims without evidence, and offer no explanations why you are correct. You just expect others to accept what you say, as if you are a god that is beyond error.

Yet you violate this very statement. You make claims of "truth" and offer no evidence. THAT is expecting others to blindly accept what you post. Me challenging you is because you have the burden of proff to demonstrate your claims are true, yet you fail to deliver this evidence or explanation.

This is correct, I have no interest in you being my guru.

Seek what, to be your follower? You aren't giving anyone something to think about, you make typical, superficial religious claims, and that's it.

Your thinking is quite simplistic.

I seek what is true about how things are. I follow evidence. I don't seek dogma.

I have offered evidence. You just have to get it yourself if you seek it. I have told you where to find it.

Say you are walking in the desert and you bump into me. I point the direction where you can Discover water. You say where is your evidence. I point the direction of the water and say there you will find the evidence you need. This is the same thing We are doing with this God thing.

It comes down to what you seek. If you do not seek, do nothing. If you do, seek.

If you think I am going to feed beliefs to accept or reject, it's not going to happen.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[ppp]

I have offered evidence. You just have to get it yourself if you seek it. I have told you where to find it.

That's not offering evidence. What you are doing is just a bait and switch. Offering evidence would require that you do the work to present your position, and its support and to hang around long enough for your interlocutor to theoughly examin your claims and your line of thinking. What you are doing is just a tactic.

 

[F1fan]

I have offered evidence. You just have to get it yourself if you seek it. I have told you where to find it.

You make claims, and assume some sort of supreme wisdom that looks more like arrogance. You assume me and others don't seek, and the only reason seems to be because we aren't agreeing with you.

Say you are walking in the desert and you bump into me. I point the direction where you can Discover water. You say where is your evidence. I point the direction of the water and say there you will find the evidence you need. This is the same thing We are doing with this God thing.

No it isn't. God isn't known to exist. You only refer to a God existing, but offer no evidence. Your word isn't good enough for such an extraordinary claim. You should know this.

It comes down to what you seek. If you do not seek, do nothing. If you do, seek.

I seek truth, not ideas to believe in. Don't you agree that is best?

If you think I am going to feed beliefs to accept or reject, it's not going to happen.

You offer them for consumption, but as you can see savvy critical thinkers aren't eating.

 

[Polymath257]

No, I'm fine with the idea of computer consciousness at same point, though I think we'd have to understand consciousness fully before we could create an AI system capable of it. Otherwise I'm not sure how we'd know the difference between an AI system emulating consciousness and actually experiencing consciousness.

And I would say that if a computer system is able to emulate consciousness to a certain degree, it *is* conscious. After all, how do weknow that other humans are conscious? We look at their behavior (including what they say). if a computer system can duplicate that, I don't see why we *wouldn't* say it is conscious.

But then, I also find the concept of a philosophical zombie (something physically identical to a conscious being that is non-conscious) to be incoherent.

To understand consciousness I think we have to clearly define it to know what it is we're trying to understand as a first step.

Absolutely.

Yes, maybe the ability to feel is not enough.

And how would we determine that? After all, we determine that other humans can feel by how they react to things. if a computer system can do the same, would it not also be conscious?

However, understanding how we experience feeling vs the mechanics of how we feel seems to be the gap.

I don't see the difference. If we know the mechanics, is that not knowing how?

And how do you know that other people feel? Use exactly the same criteria for machines to determine when/if they feel.

 

[F1fan]

And I would say that if a computer system is able to emulate consciousness to a certain degree, it *is* conscious. After all, how do weknow that other humans are conscious? We look at their behavior (including what they say). if a computer system can duplicate that, I don't see why we *wouldn't* say it is conscious.

wouldn’t it be more accurate to say computers are not independently conscious but are piggybacking off of human consciousness given the way we designed them? We designed them to do what human brains do as a tool. That we design them to mimic human consciousness would not necessarily be consciousness.

 

[Bird123]

That's not offering evidence. What you are doing is just a bait and switch. Offering evidence would require that you do the work to present your position, and its support and to hang around long enough for your interlocutor to theoughly examin your claims and your line of thinking. What you are doing is just a tactic.

A tactic? Best evidence is what one Discovers for oneself. This way there is no need for Beliefs, Accepting, and Rejecting. Granted it does take much more work, however the results are so much better. The seeker learns so much more.

I am not giving you what you want, however that does not meant you aren't capable of finding the answers, provided it's answers that you really seek.


That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

You make claims, and assume some sort of supreme wisdom that looks more like arrogance. You assume me and others don't seek, and the only reason seems to be because we aren't agreeing with you.

No it isn't. God isn't known to exist. You only refer to a God existing, but offer no evidence. Your word isn't good enough for such an extraordinary claim. You should know this.

I seek truth, not ideas to believe in. Don't you agree that is best?

You offer them for consumption, but as you can see savvy critical thinkers aren't eating.

Supreme wisdom??? No, I have just made the journey. It's easier doing something once one knows it has been done before.

You read but you do not hear. It has never been about agreeing with me. If you did seek God and someone pointed a way, what would you do? That is why I ask you what do you really seek? Do you even know?

Look at your actions and choices then ask why. That might help you to Discover what it is that you are really seeking. Be honest. You really do not seek God at all, now do you? I have asked before and received no answer from you. What is it do you seek?? Perhaps you know but can't say it.

As for your savvy critical thinkers, I placed Real Truth in the world. What anyone does with Real Truth is entirely up to them. I make no demands for anything or even agreement. Feel free to choose as you will.

Ego gets in the way of so much learning. Perhaps, Savvy critical thinkers need to not be so Savvy as to overlook something.

That's what I am seeing. Seems very clear to me. How about you??

 

[ppp]

A tactic?

A maneuver, or action calculated to achieve some end.[1] At the moment you are mouthing irrelevancies in order to avoid, evade or dodge the fact that you made a false statement.

I have offered evidence.

Whether or not there is a "best" way to get evidence is irrelevant to that fact that you, @Bird123. Have offered none.

What you are doing is just a bait and switch. Offering evidence would require that you do the work to present your position, and its support and to hang around long enough for your interlocutor to theoughly examin your claims and your line of thinking.

I will go a step further and assert that the reason that you are making such a claim, then going to such ridicoulous extremes to excuse your inability to redeem your words, is that you have no such evidence. Yet wish to maintain a false front of a superior position. This is not a goad, or a challenge to you. It is a reproof of the tactics that you choose to employ.

 

[F1fan]

Supreme wisdom??? No, I have just made the journey. It's easier doing something once one knows it has been done before.

You describe a journey that you want to be on. What you claim is something many want to avoid since it requires assumptions, like a God exists, that what a person imagines is true, that truth is what a person wants it to be, etc. You haven't shown any sort of critical analysis, skilled thinking, skepticism, and so on.

You read but you do not hear. It has never been about agreeing with me.

What you write is quite ordinary and superficial. You over-estimate its depth and impoartance. Naturally thinkers reject what you claim because you make superficial claims, and offer no details, not evidence, no method, no process, etc. What you write is like the Chopra generator:

Random Deepak Chopra Quote Generator

Random Deepak Chopra quotes generated at www.wisdomofchopra.com

wisdomofchopra.com

If you did seek God and someone pointed a way, what would you do? That is why I ask you what do you really seek? Do you even know?

I got passed thinking a God exists at 10 years old. I tested what others told me was true, and guess what, it wasn't true. Be wary of those who claim a God exists.

Look at your actions and choices then ask why. That might help you to Discover what it is that you are really seeking. Be honest. You really do not seek God at all, now do you? I have asked before and received no answer from you. What is it do you seek?? Perhaps you know but can't say it.

You assume I haven't been there, done that, of these things. It shows you have no idea who I am. You just offer random, irrelevant advice.

As for your savvy critical thinkers, I placed Real Truth in the world. What anyone does with Real Truth is entirely up to them. I make no demands for anything or even agreement. Feel free to choose as you will.

I'll Triple Dog Dare You with the Really Real Truth!!! Mine even has exclamation points, that beats yours big time.

Your code speak means nothing.

Ego gets in the way of so much learning.

You seem to be an example of this.

Perhaps, Savvy critical thinkers need to not be so Savvy as to overlook something.

Critical thinkers are skilled. They do make mistakes, but their approach is the seek truth, and mistakes are acknowledged, and the lesson learned. This is why critical thinker value other critical thinkers, as we learn quite a bit from each other. We don't learn much from dogmatic folks, like you. Dogmatic people are stuck, and they think they have found truth because they are not learning anything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You describe a journey that you want to be on. What you claim is something many want to avoid since it requires assumptions, like a God exists, that what a person imagines is true, that truth is what a person wants it to be, etc. You haven't shown any sort of critical analysis, skilled thinking, skepticism, and so on.

What you write is quite ordinary and superficial. You over-estimate its depth and impoartance. Naturally thinkers reject what you claim because you make superficial claims, and offer no details, not evidence, no method, no process, etc. What you write is like the Chopra generator:

Random Deepak Chopra Quote Generator

Random Deepak Chopra quotes generated at www.wisdomofchopra.com

wisdomofchopra.com

I got passed thinking a God exists at 10 years old. I tested what others told me was true, and guess what, it wasn't true. Be wary of those who claim a God exists.

You assume I haven't been there, done that, of these things. It shows you have no idea who I am. You just offer random, irrelevant advice.

I'll Triple Dog Dare You with the Really Real Truth!!! Mine even has exclamation points, that beats yours big time.

Your code speak means nothing.

You seem to be an example of this.

Critical thinkers are skilled. They do make mistakes, but their approach is the seek truth, and mistakes are acknowledged, and the lesson learned. This is why critical thinker value other critical thinkers, as we learn quite a bit from each other. We don't learn much from dogmatic folks, like you. Dogmatic people are stuck, and they think they have found truth because they are not learning anything.

I do believe that I trolled him a while with quotes from that site.