The Debate of God.

[Prophet]

Well then I thank you for what has been a lively and interesting debate.

 

[idav]

Seems we just see this very differently.

As far as I'm concerned our current science has explanations for the evolution of complex behaviours, but not even the beginning of an explanation for being-awareness, and the whole 'emergent behaviour' thing is just scientific 'sleight-of-hand' which says nothing about awareness.

The emergent behavior thing has been demonstrated in all the fields involving evolution. Cause and effect caused all this and it is extraordinary otherwise life wouldn't be so hard to find in the cosmos. We see where all the evidence is leading, humans just happen to be quite advance in cognitive skills so to compare a rock to a human misses the point.

 

[apophenia]

The emergent behavior thing has been demonstrated in all the fields involving evolution. Cause and effect caused all this and it is extraordinary otherwise life wouldn't be so hard to find in the cosmos. We see where all the evidence is leading, humans just happen to be quite advance in cognitive skills so to compare a rock to a human misses the point.

One more time ...

I really do appreciate what emergent behaviour is. I am a software engineer, and have also played with algorithmic music sequencers which provided an enjoyable education on the subject.

The point here is that emergent behaviour is not 'knowing you exist'.

I realise that we do not have a word which means precisely and only that, though sentience may cover it, and so the arguments I am hearing are all about stimulus-response.

Stimulus-response, no matter how complex and amazing it may be, does not require 'knowing you exist'. This is the point which Outhouse utterly fails to grasp. I suspect you do know what I am talking about.

The fact of 'knowing we exist' is not covered at all by science, and so explanations for the evolution of complex behaviours is simply a red herring.

Saying "oh, well, I guess being-awareness must be a form of emergent behaviour" simply does not make the leap from behaviour to awareness of behaviour. Emergent behaviour in no way suggests or requires the presence of sentience. So equating them is a non-sequitur which would only satisfy shallow thinkers or pseudo-scientists in my opinion. They are NOT THE SAME THING. The only argument coming from the science side is "yes they are", but with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

You refer to 'the simplest forms of awareness' and use plants turning toward the sun as an example, but that is also just a purely physical stimulus-response system which in no way requires that the plant 'know it exists' (whether or not it does I have no idea).

I was going to take this idea further but while we can't even agree that there is a universe of difference between stimulus-response systems (whether biological or cybernetic) and 'knowing you exist', there is no point continuing with my ideas.

I may revisit this topic in another thread, but for now I will just add that the refusal to see the difference between stimulus-response behaviours and 'knowing you exist' is in my opinion a symptom of massive hubris in the scientific community. Further to that, I think the question is written off with half-baked notions of emergent behaviour because of the siege mentality on both sides of the religion vs science war. The science side wants to appear to have all of creation explained, and allow not the faintest taint of 'mysticism', and so will simply redefine being-awareness as behaviour to terminate any further discussion of something science has no answer to. I can sort of understand that, because I also have no time for religious fairy stories masquerading as The Truth.

Nevertheless, when it comes to being-awareness, science has nothing.

Zip.
Nada.

Except a vague notion of emergent behaviour, which is a DIFFERENT SUBJECT.

 

[outhouse]

This is the point which Outhouse utterly fails to grasp

because at this point it is imagination from what your stating.

you cant explain it becuase it doesnt exist.

The fact of 'knowing we exist' is not covered at all by science

yes it is, you can make up a new name for being conscious but thats all it is.

and so explanations for the evolution of complex behaviours is simply a red herring

how so?

there is no point continuing with my ideas.

I agree.

Nevertheless, when it comes to being-awareness, science has nothing.

False

I may revisit this topic in another thread, but for now I will just add that the refusal to see the difference between stimulus-response behaviours and 'knowing you exist' is in my opinion a symptom of massive hubris in the scientific community. Further to that, I think the question is written off with half-baked notions of emergent behaviour because of the siege mentality on both sides of the religion vs science war. The science side wants to appear to have all of creation explained, and allow not the faintest taint of 'mysticism', and so will simply redefine being-awareness as behaviour to terminate any further discussion of something science has no answer to. I can sort of understand that, because I also have no time for religious fairy stories masquerading as The Truth.

[facepalm]

 

[Daviso452]

I will have to agree that you are a little annoying outhouse.

But regarding Apophenia, I think I finally understand what you are talking about. Before, I had trouble understanding what you meant by "awareness" and perhaps I still do. As an example when I say "I hurt my knee," how did I first become aware that "I" could feel pain? In other words, how do I know that "I" am asking this, or what am "I".

Is this a correct understanding? If so then I am able to explain it; or at least I think I do.

 

[apophenia]

because at this point it is imagination from what your stating.

you cant explain it becuase it doesnt exist.
[facepalm]

That's the weird irony here . It's you who thinks you have something explained, not me.

I am merely pointing out that you don't have an explanation for something (knowing we exist - being-awareness, sentience, as opposed to mere stimulus response), and it is you using imagination to claim you have it explained.

Your language comprehension seems to be failing you.

I am not 'imagining' that I am aware, you are imagining that you can explain it.

 

[apophenia]

just to refresh your memory Outhouse, I made a post in response to a post which challenged anyone to come up with something which is not material.

Since awareness-of-being is not physically explained, I nominated it.

I have not proposed any theories, or imagined anything, except in one post where I suggested other possible ways of thinking about awareness just as examples of possible lines of thought.

I have challenged you a few times to state what you think I am proposing or imagining, but it seems that at this stage you have a hammer in your hand and everything looks like a nail.

You also claimed to be an expert in the field of awareness. So stop being a mere annoyance finding false criticisms of my position, and explain to us all what awareness-of-being actually is, how it functions, and anything else you may know about it, because so far you have contributed nothing.

 

[apophenia]

I will have to agree that you are a little annoying outhouse.

But regarding Apophenia, I think I finally understand what you are talking about. Before, I had trouble understanding what you meant by "awareness" and perhaps I still do. As an example when I say "I hurt my knee," how did I first become aware that "I" could feel pain? In other words, how do I know that "I" am asking this, or what am "I".

Is this a correct understanding? If so then I am able to explain it; or at least I think I do.

It is interesting to me that this is a difficult meaning to nail down. What I am referring to is the bedrock of every experience you have. Call it awakeness as opposed to unconsciousness.

When I studied meditation with Tibetans, they considered this to be the fundamental recognition without which no progress could be made in meditation.

It was described as 'too close too be seen, to familiar to be recognised, to easy to be attained' and other similar statements, and now I see why they used those terms !

In Tibetan terms our whole experience has two aspects - sem and rigpa.
Sem means conceptual mind - the moving parts, anything composite.
Rigpa means awareness - like the space in which thoughts and feelings occur.

The first 'landmark' in the meditational practice called mahamudra is called 'making the differentiation'. Which is recognising, experientially not intellectually, the difference between sem and rigpa, between conceptual mental activity and awareness itself.

I realise now that we don't get this easily in the west because of a mindset so familiar it is invisible.

When I asked Traleg Rinpoche if awareness was the goal of meditation he said "No, it is the portal to the transcendent reality", by which he meant Being.

Does that help at all ?

 

[idav]

One more time ...

I really do appreciate what emergent behaviour is. I am a software engineer, and have also played with algorithmic music sequencers which provided an enjoyable education on the subject.

The point here is that emergent behaviour is not 'knowing you exist'.

I realise that we do not have a word which means precisely and only that, though sentience may cover it, and so the arguments I am hearing are all about stimulus-response.

Stimulus-response, no matter how complex and amazing it may be, does not require 'knowing you exist'. This is the point which Outhouse utterly fails to grasp. I suspect you do know what I am talking about.

The fact of 'knowing we exist' is not covered at all by science, and so explanations for the evolution of complex behaviours is simply a red herring.

Saying "oh, well, I guess being-awareness must be a form of emergent behaviour" simply does not make the leap from behaviour to awareness of behaviour. Emergent behaviour in no way suggests or requires the presence of sentience. So equating them is a non-sequitur which would only satisfy shallow thinkers or pseudo-scientists in my opinion. They are NOT THE SAME THING. The only argument coming from the science side is "yes they are", but with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

You refer to 'the simplest forms of awareness' and use plants turning toward the sun as an example, but that is also just a purely physical stimulus-response system which in no way requires that the plant 'know it exists' (whether or not it does I have no idea).

I was going to take this idea further but while we can't even agree that there is a universe of difference between stimulus-response systems (whether biological or cybernetic) and 'knowing you exist', there is no point continuing with my ideas.

I may revisit this topic in another thread, but for now I will just add that the refusal to see the difference between stimulus-response behaviours and 'knowing you exist' is in my opinion a symptom of massive hubris in the scientific community. Further to that, I think the question is written off with half-baked notions of emergent behaviour because of the siege mentality on both sides of the religion vs science war. The science side wants to appear to have all of creation explained, and allow not the faintest taint of 'mysticism', and so will simply redefine being-awareness as behaviour to terminate any further discussion of something science has no answer to. I can sort of understand that, because I also have no time for religious fairy stories masquerading as The Truth.

Nevertheless, when it comes to being-awareness, science has nothing.

Zip.
Nada.

Except a vague notion of emergent behaviour, which is a DIFFERENT SUBJECT.

I understand exactly what your saying and I'd even be inclined to help out with your argument. The problem is that evolution is evidence of emergence. What else is needed? We see the differences in awareness complexity the higher up you go on the food chain. This is testable and it being tested by various fields of science.

 

[outhouse]

I will have to agree that you are a little annoying outhouse.

then provide facts to back up your statements.

 

[outhouse]

That's the weird irony here . It's you who thinks you have something explained, not me.

I am merely pointing out that you don't have an explanation for something (knowing we exist - being-awareness, sentience, as opposed to mere stimulus response), and it is you using imagination to claim you have it explained.

Your language comprehension seems to be failing you.

I am not 'imagining' that I am aware, you are imagining that you can explain it.

You alone are trying to recreate your own brand of conscious and your doing a poor job at that.

 

[outhouse]

Since awareness-of-being is not physically explained

thats why your lost and all alone on this.

the human brain is physical and its what causes awarness, its a survival skill.

\

I have challenged you a few times to state what you think I am proposing or imagining

im not playing your game.

its your job to explain your position clearly if you have one at all

 

[outhouse]

I understand exactly what your saying and I'd even be inclined to help out with your argument. The problem is that evolution is evidence of emergence. What else is needed? We see the differences in awareness complexity the higher up you go on the food chain. This is testable and it being tested by various fields of science.

good post

not only that most animals have awareness built in as a survival skill that developed and evolved early on.

If you cant imagine and be aware, your food.

 

[apophenia]

I understand exactly what your saying and I'd even be inclined to help out with your argument. The problem is that evolution is evidence of emergence. What else is needed? We see the differences in awareness complexity the higher up you go on the food chain. This is testable and it being tested by various fields of science.

Evolution is evidence of emergence.

No argument.

If you take a simple computer simulation of emergent behaviour, something like the famous program Life, you can observe how this process can operate with no awareness whatsoever.

You seem to be taking the position that because I don't think science has an explanation for awareness, therefore I am attacking the credibility of science.

Not at all.

Science has no complete explanation for lots of things, gravity for instance.
That does not mean that the science involving observed facts about gravity is wrong. The Newtonian equations work, whether we have an understanding of the mechanism of gravity or not. So we have an isomorphic mapping of our model and observable behaviour, which gives us a useful tool.
The Higgs boson may turn out to be what science is looking for there, but that doesn't alter my point for now. My point is that up to this point it has been true to say that we don't know what gravity is.
By saying that, I am neither denigrating science nor suggesting 'imaginary theories', I am simply stating that there is a hole in scientific knowledge there.

Science has not explained awareness either.

You continue to make the error that because we have emergent behaviour to explain some features of biological life, we therefore have an 'explanation' for awareness, but you still have not grasped that such emergent behaviour can be modelled in systems which noone considers sentient, unless they have been smoking weed while watching 'Matrix'.

In other words, there is still no reason to equate emergent behaviour with awareness, because we can demonstrate emergent behaviour in the absence of awareness.

You and Outhouse continue to argue against a point I am not making !

My only point here is that science has not demonstrated a connection between complexity and sentience.

You have decided to translate awareness ONLY as emergent stimulus-response behaviour, but that does nothing to explain sentience, since emergent stimulus response behaviour can be programmed into a piece of silicon.

So unless you seriously want to propose that the silicon is aware, sentient, self-knowing, then it's time to admit that you are not answering my point, which is that we do not have a material explanation for sentience.

 

[apophenia]

Let me put this in one simple sentence - we can create non-sentient systems which demonstrate emergent behaviour, therefore emergent behaviour cannot be equated with sentience.

 

[idav]

Science has not explained awareness either.

What we don't quite understand yet is sentience. But we certainly know plenty about neurology and are getting closer to even understanding sentience let alone basic awareness.

You continue to make the error that because we have emergent behaviour to explain some features of biological life, we therefore have an 'explanation' for awareness, but you still have not grasped that such emergent behaviour can be modelled in systems which noone considers sentient, unless they have been smoking weed while watching 'Matrix'.

Your making the mistake again of requiring us to know enough to do AI. I'm talking about awareness not sentience.

In other words, there is still no reason to equate emergent behaviour with awareness, because we can demonstrate emergent behaviour in the absence of awareness.

The reason is because neuro science has gotten into biology and we know the basics of how it all works. We even know the basics of the brain of a bee. What we can see in biology is emergence of sentience and this is best demonstrated when comparing a chimp to a human. Unless your saying that there is something truly unique about humans vs. chimps then emergence is a clear indication and complexity is the only thing that puts humans where we are.

You and Outhouse continue to argue against a point I am not making !

Outhouse has a different issue with your statements and I understand that you were trying to make a point.

My only point here is that science has not demonstrated a connection between complexity and sentience.

I've given examples of how it has.

You have decided to translate awareness ONLY as emergent stimulus-response behaviour, but that does nothing to explain sentience, since emergent stimulus response behaviour can be programmed into a piece of silicon.

I'm actually willing to say that computers are aware. Probably the first thread I started in philosophy.

So unless you seriously want to propose that the silicon is aware, sentient, self-knowing, then it's time to admit that you are not answering my point, which is that we do not have a material explanation for sentience.

We know all the processes from you viewing something to it registering in your eye then gets turned into data that is sent to the brain and then the brain stores it. We know how the brain works and are uncovering so much and it always always points to a material process.

 

[apophenia]

Your making the mistake again of requiring us to know enough to do AI. I'm talking about awareness not sentience.

Right at the beginning of my posts on this subject ( and all the way through ! ) I made it clear that by awareness I meant sentience in the sense of 'knowing that you exist', which I often referred to as 'being-awareness'.


And at no point did I 'require us to know enough to do AI'.

We can do AI. It isn't sentient. That's my point.

* mutters to himself about peoples reading comprehension skills *

 

[outhouse]

Science has not explained awareness either.

yes they have, even websters has it down 100%

because we can demonstrate emergent behaviour in the absence of awareness.

awareness has nothing to do with emergent behaviour at all.

You have decided to translate awareness ONLY as emergent stimulus-response behaviour,

false and we havnt stated as such.

My only point here is that science has not demonstrated a connection between complexity and sentience.

False again

the more complex a brain is, the sentience is more complex.






the brain handles our "Conscious" and you cant explain what your trying to state becuase it is imaginaitive and doesnt exist.

Its so far out there! you cant explain it in a logical sentence, you have to ramble on about what things are not. We dont care about that. MAKE a point and describe what is, so far your just dancing around what science doesnt know according to you and only you.


a gap in science exact knowledge does not mean you can throw in a handful of imagination, and what does that have to do with the OP.

You have single handedly taken this thread so far off topic with your imagination running wild with the term conscious it amazes me.

 

[outhouse]

Right at the beginning of my posts on this subject ( and all the way through ! ) I made it clear that by awareness I meant sentience in the sense of 'knowing that you exist', which I often referred to as 'being-awareness'.

this happens in the womb, as we grow and our brain develops

 

[outhouse]

* mutters to himself about peoples reading comprehension skills *

mutters are your looking in a mirror.



your alone on this in every way, but somehow only you know this magical knowledge, no one who studies the fields and all the experts missed it! but you, you nailed it! [facepalm]