The Debate of God.

[idav]

The challenge I posted was for any scientific evidence linking complexity to sentience.

Your quotes and article don't even touch on sentience, nor require it.

So far you are still offering science fiction. Speculation.

Why can't you admit that science actually has no idea about something ?

Is that shameful ?

Even if there are some questions, it is testable. Awareness may very well be immaterial but it is obvious that things work well enough with the basic building blocks of the universe. Is there something else that is supposed to magically be in atoms that make awareness possible?

 

[apophenia]

Anyway, we are going in circles again here.

Show me some science which establishes what sentience is ( i.e. more than just 'activity', which occurs in what you call inanimate systems), and how it is 'caused' by molecular interactions.

If you can't, then just admit you can't.

So far this challenge has never been met. Not even close.

 

[idav]

Anyway, we are going in circles again here.

Show me some science which establishes what sentience is ( i.e. more than just 'activity', which occurs in what you call inanimate systems), and how it is 'caused' by molecular interactions.

If you can't, then just admit you can't.

So far this challenge has never been met. Not even close.

I'm not even sure what field of science your wanting. I showed emergence but you say that isn't evidence. Why don't we start with what exactly science can't explain with perhaps a simple example. You don't even accept reaction to stimuli as evidence even when thrown into an evolutionary journey. I just feel like its obvious so idk where your trying to go with it. Sure there are unanswered questions but we have the basics and we are testing to find the answers to what we don't know yet.

 

[apophenia]

Is there something else that is supposed to magically be in atoms that make awareness possible?

I am not suggesting an answer to that.

In fact I remember stating many times that we don't know.

It is you who are claiming knowledge, yet providing no real evidence.

I admit ignorance of the nature of awareness, yet it is irrefutably present !

And science has no handle on it.

So come on, some simple words, "you are right, we don't know anything about what sentience is or its relationship to matter"

In fact, it may be that there is something 'magical' (your word) in awareness that makes atoms possible. I don't know or believe that either, but at this point science cannot refute that nor assert a provable alternative.

If you have no definitive science on the subject, why are you persisting as though you have ?

That cannot advance science, that is just the same as religious belief.

 

[Orias]

If one can make the unsupported claim that God causes it, then I can make the unsupported claim that he doesn't. Boo hoo.

Your conviction seems almost certain.

I was just asking what authority you possess over the matter, and clearly you do not know enough about either side to be making such judgements, if you know anything at all.

I fear you missed the point of what I was trying to say.

I must of, because all I got from this point was that you don't like magic, and could care less to define its actuality.

Why doesn't your computer work without a power source? I mean, it has all the parts there, why does it need electricity?

Because it is the way the electricity interacts with the computer that allows the computer to do things.

And in the same way, it is the interactions between the millions of neurons in the brain that allow people to experience things.

You are trying to say that consciousness comes from the matter. I am saying that it comes from the INTERACTIONS between the matter.

Get it?

Ha, you need to reread.

You are trying to say that consciousness ONLY comes from interaction and on top of that you are saying that material needs to interact in order for it to be recognized.

You need to do some reorganizing, since like your computer example it would hardly be if the matter was not there to compound, interact, and create.

Consciousness does not just come from matter, but it comes from the interactions between matter. Its not like I'm limiting to one or the other, I simply stated that its not just "interaction".

How many times must I repeat myself?

You are trying to say that consciousness comes from the matter. I am saying that it comes from the INTERACTIONS between the matter.

Get it?

This still doesn't make much sense.

Because I could use this example right here and say that...

Well we don't see God but some claim to hear him, so this intereaction going on must just be those crazy loonies that we keep locked up in the asylums.

Your making a sound argument for God when you leave out matter and just say that its "interaction", because according to most people who have claimed to experience such thing, there was just interaction and no "material" behind it.

 

[apophenia]

I'm not even sure what field of science your wanting. I showed emergence but you say that isn't evidence. Why don't we start with what exactly science can't explain with perhaps a simple example. You don't even accept reaction to stimuli as evidence even when thrown into an evolutionary journey. I just feel like its obvious so idk where your trying to go with it. Sure there are unanswered questions but we have the basics and we are testing to find the answers to what we don't know yet.

I find it fascinating that with all your scientific understanding you can't grasp that complex behaviour does not equal sentient complex behaviour.

You are very nicely explaining a mechanism, but not awareness of the mechanism. We've been over this many times, and I'm wondering if you are feigning misunderstanding for some reason.

 

[idav]

I find it fascinating that with all your scientific understanding you can't grasp that complex behaviour does not equal sentient complex behaviour.

You are very nicely explaining a mechanism, but not awareness of the mechanism. We've been over this many times, and I'm wondering if you are feigning misunderstanding for some reason.

The disconnect is I'm seeing evidence where you see none. In evolution we see basic awareness become complex to the point of sentience, so I don't really see an issue. The cell is the building block of life which in complexity awareness is emergent as seen in humans compared to other lifeforms that show sentience.

 

[idav]

There are some things we can test for.
[youtube]dYn86UBkowU[/youtube]
Brain Neurons & The Chimpanzee in the Mirror - YouTube

 

[apophenia]

... In evolution we see basic awareness become complex to the point of sentience,...

To the point of ?

That is a gigantic unscientific leap.

To the point of !

What does that mean ?

Show me a testable hypothesis that explains what this 'point' is, otherwise you may as well say 'to the point of divinity''.

That is not science, it is a non-explanation for something you choose to believe.

 

[apophenia]

By 'basic awareness' you mean stimulus response, which as we have already agreed does not imply sentience. Stimulus response systems are understandable, but do not imply sentience. Nor does the explanation for stimulus response require or include sentience. We've been through this ....

 

[apophenia]

What this debate makes clear is that science is not the only means of gaining knowledge about the nature of reality.

Throughout human history countles beings have attested to the fact that there is a dimension to reality which can only be experienced, not intellectually explained. This dimension is experienced by absorption in awareness, which leads to the undeniable experience of 'being', of 'presence'.

Further, this experience of being changes those who experience it. And generally speaking, part of that change is the realisation of the 'ignorance' which is characterised by living in the explanation of reality, as though the explanation were the experience itself.

Some who are awake to this experience use the term 'god' to differentiate it from the activity of gross matter, and from the explanation which is just intellectualism.

There is a political dimension to this 'ignorance' ( i.e. the ignoring of being , as opposed to matter). People are being reduced to economic units in a system of production/consumption, and as a result seek fulfillment through consumption of products, which keeps a minority wealthy and powerful, and has the side effect of global environmental degradation.

What would happen to our economic system if people discovered a greater happiness which does not rely on unnecessary consumption of products ? In other words, if people lived like the native Americans or Tibetans or Australian aborigines ?

Simply, that would drastically alter the social/poltical landscape.

Note that all cultures which have valued the experience of being itself have been violently destroyed by the culture of over-consumption, and the result is impending collapse of the ecosystem. This pathological attitude to the earth is empowered and driven by a 'merely matter in motion' religion masquerading as science.

Also, there is no evidence that people are happier, more self-fulfilled, by owning cars and i-phones than people living in simplicity . They tell us they are happier, and we tell them they aren't, for no other reason than attachment to the consolation prize of gizmos and glitter.

Scientism is effectively the theological arm of big business.

This self-realisation experience, which is as irrefutable as the awareness you are experiencing right now, can only be known but not proved, is outside the domain of what science can investigate. So proponents of scientism want it dismissed to assert the ultimate and unique value of materialism.

Note - I said 'scientism', not science.

 

[Tiberius]

We can observe electronic activity in a computer as it computes.

That is not evidence for emergence of sentience.

You are still failing to differentiate between 'activity' and awareness.

It is obvious to me that there is a link between the brain activity and the forms that appear (thoughts, perceptions), but those thoughts and perceptions are analogous to the data in a computer. Awareness of those forms is another matter entirely.

So what?

Did I say that interactions between the components of a system lead to sentience in every case? No I didn't.

Anyway, we are going in circles again here.

Show me some science which establishes what sentience is ( i.e. more than just 'activity', which occurs in what you call inanimate systems), and how it is 'caused' by molecular interactions.

If you can't, then just admit you can't.

So far this challenge has never been met. Not even close.

Do you think you would be sentient without any molecular interactions? I thought not.

Sentience requires a working brain. Brains work because of the millions of interactions between neurons.

Your conviction seems almost certain.

I was just asking what authority you possess over the matter, and clearly you do not know enough about either side to be making such judgements, if you know anything at all.

Certain enough for myself, at least.

Anyway, if we are to start talking about authority here, I want to know what authority Apophenia has to say "god is the difference between a collection of inanimate molecules and a person".

I must of, because all I got from this point was that you don't like magic, and could care less to define its actuality.

First of all, it's "must have" and if I could care less, then it means that I care some amount, which is the opposite of what you want to say, so you mean "couldn't care less."

Anyway, the point that I was making was that things do not need outside motivation to interact. They are capable of doing by themselves. I said this in response to Apophenia's claim that "god is the difference between a collection of inanimate molecules and a person"

Ha, you need to reread.

You are trying to say that consciousness ONLY comes from interaction and on top of that you are saying that material needs to interact in order for it to be recognized.

You need to do some reorganizing, since like your computer example it would hardly be if the matter was not there to compound, interact, and create.

Consciousness does not just come from matter, but it comes from the interactions between matter. Its not like I'm limiting to one or the other, I simply stated that its not just "interaction".

Well, I didn't see anything else talking about interactions between cells working to create consciousness, and I certainly am not aware of any consciousness that occurs without interactions...

This still doesn't make much sense.

Because I could use this example right here and say that...

Well we don't see God but some claim to hear him, so this intereaction going on must just be those crazy loonies that we keep locked up in the asylums.

Your making a sound argument for God when you leave out matter and just say that its "interaction", because according to most people who have claimed to experience such thing, there was just interaction and no "material" behind it.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

A human being is conscious and sentient because the neurons in his brain are interacting. Without those interactions, the brain does not work.

That is what I am saying. How you turn this into me making an argument for the existence of god escapes me completely.

 

[idav]

By 'basic awareness' you mean stimulus response, which as we have already agreed does not imply sentience. Stimulus response systems are understandable, but do not imply sentience. Nor does the explanation for stimulus response require or include sentience. We've been through this ....

Yes by basic awareness I mean reaction to stimuli. That is all that is needed for awareness. A simple example is your ability to feel pain is just reaction to stimuli. The awareness of it is due to the pain receptors reporting everything to a central location where it is conceived. If you feel pain you react just like cells are able to do.

 

[Daviso452]

By 'basic awareness' you mean stimulus response, which as we have already agreed does not imply sentience. Stimulus response systems are understandable, but do not imply sentience. Nor does the explanation for stimulus response require or include sentience. We've been through this ....

I really do not know what to say. I'm not sure if I really even believe in consciousness. Apophenia, you may consider it a postulate; the concept of consciousness. But it isn't exactly a well-defined thing.

From what I have come across, awareness, self-awareness and consciousness are for the most part philosophical terms. That's where I think your major flaw is. You keep trying to place conciousness as a thing, when it is nothing more than a concept.

In fact, I'd say its exactly like God. A concept invented by man to explain our existence with no evidence to really support it.

Everything I've come across is mostly what I and others have told you. From the dawn of life, evolution occurred. The emergence of more complex organisms lead to animals, and the development of the senses, and thus the brain. Animals became aware of their surroundings by sensing things around them. As the brains of apes increased, we became able to learn more and do more and become more aware. As our brains continued to develop, we began developing the sense of self as an individual separate from other individuals.

You asked "How could a non-conscious thing suddenly become conscious?" I was wrong in what I said before. Science has explained it. I was just confused about what you were talking about. It's not the answer you were hoping for, but it is what you were looking for

Like I said. Consciousness isn't a thing. The closest thing to it would be our senses working with the neurological pathways in our brain. That's all. Our mind is just a bunch of chemical reactions. Same as our feelings. Same as our emotions, and senses. Chemicals sent to the brain.

Science can't explain consciousness; it's like explaining god. But science can explain how our brain works. And our brain is what makes us who we are. Nothing else has ever been shown to be a factor in who we are.

Does that mean there isn't? No. Is it likely there is? Also no. We haven't fully explained the brain, so we don't know everything that makes us who we are. But that does not mean it is faith that leads us to believe that the brain is solely responsible; it is the fact that the brain has been shown to make up all of it thus far, and there is NO REASON to believe otherwise.

So don't say for a god damn moment that it is just like God. God cannot be proven. We have never found evidence for god. We have no reason to believe we ever will.

It's the difference between having something and nothing.

 

[nnmartin]

What is sentience itself?

Ok , it's caused by interactions in the brain but what is it's substance and what turns all this mass of data from different cells into one thing?

Can we analyse that on some kind of machine?

 

[Daviso452]

What is sentience itself?

Ok , it's caused by interactions in the brain but what is it's substance and what turns all this mass of data from different cells into one thing?

Can we analyse that on some kind of machine?

Sentience is a by-product of self-awareness really. Oh, and it's a mass of cells that have the same DNA.

 

[idav]

What is sentience itself?

Ok , it's caused by interactions in the brain but what is it's substance and what turns all this mass of data from different cells into one thing?

Can we analyse that on some kind of machine?

From the way I understand it data is not really a substance so I think Daviso was correct in what was being said above. It is directly related to substance just like the data gets transferred from one machine to another or from one cell to another. The data is just a projection of the pattern produced by the ones and zeros that gets deciphered into something of substance. When we see something we aren't really seeing it I would say we are seeing something more like a tv projection from the data sent from the eyes to the visual cortex. We know the basics and some and consciousness is the result of the material processes being done in the brain.

 

[Daviso452]

From the way I understand it data is not really a substance so I think Daviso was correct in what was being said above. It is directly related to substance just like the data gets transferred from one machine to another or from one cell to another. The data is just a projection of the pattern produced by the ones and zeros that gets deciphered into something of substance. When we see something we aren't really seeing it I would say we are seeing something more like a tv projection from the data sent from the eyes to the visual cortex. We know the basics and some and consciousness is the result of the material processes being done in the brain.

In a sense, with the right parts and programming, machines can become conscious.

 

[apophenia]

In a sense, with the right parts and programming, machines can become conscious.

And there it is again.

That is a claim which arises from the flawed logic which confuses complex behaviour with self-awareness.

It is a claim which becomes the necessary position to take once you have dismissed the actual experience of being as mere side effect of a mechanism.

I have never heard this claim from anyone who has practiced awareness meditation. It is a claim only made by people who theorise about awareness but do not investigate it experientially.

Experiential investigation is written off as unscientific, and as a result you only accept intellectualisations about something which can only be known directly, as your own nature.

These intellectualisations lead to the proposition that machines can be conscious because it becomes a logical neccessity of the argument. And the argument is made without even making the personal experiential investigation of your nature.

You (not just you Daviso ...) do not know what the experience of samadhi is, because you have rejected direct experience utterly and replaced it with theories.

This is why I call scientism a kind of fundamentalism. It is fundamentalism because you have decided that it is the only way to gain information about reality.

As a result of that fundamentalism, you choose not to even bother verifying whether or not knowledge can be gained by direct examination of your nature in the here and now.

That is tragic. A lamentable devaluation of your living experience.

 

[nnmartin]

In a sense, with the right parts and programming, machines can become conscious.

Do you mean a bit like the Terminator then?

Because if you believe what you are saying then Science fiction becomes reality.