Consciousness question

[Iacchus]

However, you misunderstand the role of "data". From what you have said, you seem to think "data" is some actual thing that actually sustains the universe. I have just posted why that is an inaccurate assessment.

Yes, this would seem to suggest that the Universe was designed by "intention."

 

[Dark Jaguar]

And if we were in fact in a computer simulation would what I said be any less true? Would our reality be any less "real"? After all, our observations of what occurs are still what they are. Just because it's all a vast program it doesn't mean matter and energy don't still exist. It would merely mean our models explaining them don't account for that computer program nature of them. And still, the fact that data is still essentially just the current state of all that stuff out there remains the same. Even if it is just a computer simulation and the simulation involves a lot of data being processed, these would all just be existant states representing something else that exists.

That said, there is no evidence we are in the Matrix. That is, unless you have a certain pill?

*Note, I will not actually consume any pills you may have without some proper poison control testing.

Edit: Why does that suggest the universe was designed by intention?

 

[Czarzy]

To a lot of people, a Rube Goldberg scenario is always much more fun than a more energy-saving and conspiratory-less explanation for a phenomenon.

Funtasy vs reality.

 

[Iacchus]

And if we were in fact in a computer simulation would what I said be any less true? Would our reality be any less "real"?

Within the context of the simulation, no.

That said, there is no evidence we are in the Matrix.

This is obviously not my contention.

That is, unless you have a certain pill?

*Note, I will not actually consume any pills you may have without some proper poison control testing.

Some mystics have been known to take "things" to stimulate this. However, in my case, it's not necessary.

Edit: Why does that suggest the universe was designed by intention?

Because when properly understood, data can be expressed in terms of a command. Especially when it entails a yes or no propositon.

 

[Iacchus]

To a lot of people, a Rube Goldberg scenario is always much more fun than a more energy-saving and conspiratory-less explanation for a phenomenon.

Funtasy vs reality.

Truth can be stranger than fiction.

 

[Mercutio]

That said, there is no evidence we are in the Matrix.

This is obviously not my contention.

In context, then, you are saying not simply that you assert that we are in a "Matrix", but you further assert that there is evidence to this effect. We have asked you for this, of course, and all we get is Swedenborg and more baseless assertions.

It is very easy to explain your position if you are wrong. The cognitive heuristics are well known; the perceptual biases well understood. It is not easy to explain if you are right; you would need to explain why all available evidence up to this point seemed to show that you were quite wrong. What are the new laws of physics under your view? How do they explain our past observations, while simultaneously demonstrating that our previous interpretation is wrong?

You have your work cut out for you.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Iacchus,

I sustain my offer. Be coherent, lets begin from the basics.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Data/information which tells the body what to do? Yes. Or, in this case the body would have to analyze the data contained within the food to determine whether it can utilize it or not. At either rate, there is an exchange of information going on here.

Without data, I don't think anything would operate. In fact I don't think there would be any "matter" to speak of.

By arbitrarily assigning the word "data" to atoms/molecules with regards to the manner by which they interact with each other, you are then free to allow data to stream about throughout the known universe. And since you arbitrarily unify data with consciousness, the whole of the universe has essences of conciousness in varying degrees.

Data by definition is information that is organized/processed/analyzed. Atoms don't detect the position of atoms, record the positions of those atoms in any form, process the information based on those recordings, and then react. Atoms respond directly to electric fields.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Perhaps it was a flaw in my reasoning to try and break down "data" into only being stored in the sense of something's current state? Yes, it must actually be worked with and processed to be considered "data", otherwise it is just matter and energy in a specific state.

At any rate, it still remains that the energy in and of itself is not the data.

Oh by the way, as for his equating data with conciousness, I think that's my fault. I introduced the analogy.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Perhaps it was a flaw in my reasoning to try and break down "data" into only being stored in the sense of something's current state? Yes, it must actually be worked with and processed to be considered "data", otherwise it is just matter and energy in a specific state.

At any rate, it still remains that the energy in and of itself is not the data.

Oh by the way, as for his equating data with conciousness, I think that's my fault. I introduced the analogy.

In current computing, a bit (datum) is stored in a single transistor. Upon the onset of quantum computing (50-100 years?), we'll be able to store a bit (datum) in a single electron spin state. So, there will be a time when energy states translates into data.

 

[Iacchus]

From this thread

The (alleged) words of the Nobel prize winning physicist and father of quantum physics, Max Planck ...

As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as the result of my research about atoms this much:

THERE IS NO MATTER AS SUCH!

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.

 

[Iacchus]

If you had taken the time to watch the videos, you would know that what you just said here is counter to the evidence of Libet's experiments. Your "conscious decision" is not a cause, but an effect.

You are redefining lots of things now...

And we are all automatons, of course.

 

[Iacchus]

SShhhh!!! BDZ, don't discourage DJ! His/her posts may well be lost on Iacchus, but I am taking notes on them...people ask this sort of question in my classes all the time, and DJ's posts are very helpful to me.

Actually I understand him/her fairly well, in terms of electronics and how computers operate. I'm just not taking it all in because I'm pressed for time (I'm at work right now) and trying to get my point across as well.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Iacchus. Sometimes, the only way to get around confusionsis to study. Maybe you should consider a course or set of courses in a school.

 

[Mercutio]

From this thread

The (alleged) words of the Nobel prize winning physicist and father of quantum physics, Max Planck ...

The appeal to authority, an appeal to a man who has never studied "mind" at all. A very odd and ironic (alanic?) case; so often we hear people, trying to get around the impossible characteristics they think describe the mind, invoke the name of quantum physics without understanding it, on the grounds that "hey, they are both too complex for me to understand, they must be the same thing." Here we have a man (Planck) who goes the opposite direction; he understands quantum physics, but not how the illusion of "mind" emerges from the workings of the body (including brain), and so invokes "mind" without understanding it...perhaps on similar grounds, a "both are incredibly complex, they must be the same thing" argument.

In both directions, it is an argument born of ignorance. If Planck can make an ignorant statement when speaking on something outside his area of expertise, just imagine the sorts of ignorant statements might be made by someone who actively avoids cultivating any areas of expertise in the first place! Oh, wait...you don't have to imagine.

 

[Mercutio]

And we are all automatons, of course.

So, did you make this statement based on having looked up Libet's experiment? Or do you make this statement in an attempt to dismiss it without having even examined it?

Oddly enough, the most predictable, most automaton-like person here is you, Iacchus. It makes sense, though--the more simple the environment, the more simple the behaviors, and you have avoided adding any new information to your environment. If you are not going to allow yourself to learn, you will persist in the same behaviors...as you do.

 

[Genesius]

And we are all automatons, of course.

You certainly appear to be, since you spew out the same old arguments time and time again without any thought for the fact that they've already been refuted.

For example, your regurgitation of the Planck quote which was thoroughly gone over here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1317601#post1317601
and here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1328690#post1328690
and here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1309453#post1309453

 

[NeilC]

I don't any of this englightening on what conscioussness is. I already know the brain can store information, has a bio-electrical system and has billions of synapses. It doesn't explain to me how a rock is a lump of atoms, a tree is a living thing but they have no knowledge of me and I can see them, understand some of their nature, write poetry about them, have thoughts about my thoughts and then discuss them on the internet whilst worrying about my bank account.

It occurs to me that the answer to "what is consciousness?" is likely to be 42 if you know what I mean.

 

[kmortis]

It occurs to me that the answer to "what is consciousness?" is likely to be 42 if you know what I mean.

To a certain degree, yes it is 42. But we are gaining insight all the time. The issue here isn't a simple answer, nor can it be easily described.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

To a certain degree, yes it is 42. But we are gaining insight all the time. The issue here isn't a simple answer, nor can it be easily described.

I agree. Still, for characters like Iacchus, we most state clear that one thing is to understand that we still dont have all the details.

And another, very different, is to jump from this to make any (absurd) declaration that we want!!!