Consciousness question

[Z]

Say, what is 'atheistic-materialism', anyway? What about theist-materialists? What about atheist-idealists? Some in both camps look at consciousness much the same way I do (a theist-materialist).

 

[PixyMisa]

Thank you, but I'm not too worried about differing degrees of awareness. Just the most fundamental example of consciousness from atheistic-materialism, which seems to be nearly all instances where information is processed.

As has been pointed out, this is a question of definitions. We have provided the defintions. Do you have a problem with the definitions, or not?

 

[Iacchus]

I believe it is possible.

Let me make an assumption. Firstly, the "big bang" is, by the definition I personally use in thought, a term used to demonstrate the point when the laws of physics as we know them came into being. I don't know how that actually occured, and I can't do anything more than guess. So, no huge explosion - plain and simply, when the laws of physics began.

From this thread ...

Does a computer have to exist "ideally" (in principle) before it can be constructed in actuality? So, where does this ideal computer exist? Where does anything exist, if not as an ideal first?

That doesn't mean that the ideal is a distinct reality. As far as evidence suggests, it's very much part of OUR reality.

Is that to say that principles pretty much govern themselves and morph whenever it suits the occasion? So, what is it that governs the process of morphing then? How is that possible, if there wasn't something else already in place (in principle) to insure that it happens exactly the way it was meant to happen?

 

[PixyMisa]

Say, what is 'atheistic-materialism', anyway? What about theist-materialists? What about atheist-idealists? Some in both camps look at consciousness much the same way I do (a theist-materialist).

No, it's WAMS - western atheist materialist skeptics.

So if you're Asian or African or South American, or you're a theist or a deist or an agnostic or a pantheist or pagan, or you're an idealist or a dualist or a naturalist or a solipsist, or you're credulous or trusting or take things on faith, it doesn't apply.

 

[Iacchus]

I believe it is possible.

Let me make an assumption. Firstly, the "big bang" is, by the definition I personally use in thought, a term used to demonstrate the point when the laws of physics as we know them came into being. I don't know how that actually occured, and I can't do anything more than guess. So, no huge explosion - plain and simply, when the laws of physics began.

Yes, but how can something as essential as the laws of physics have a beginning? Isn't this in effect saying there was nothing before the Big Bang?

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Thank you, but I'm not too worried about differing degrees of awareness. Just the most fundamental example of consciousness from atheistic-materialism, which seems to be nearly all instances where information is processed.
_
HypnoPsi

Define it and we can then tell you what we have found to be the most fundamental example of it.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

All I am doing is asking for the materialistic-atheist explanation of consciousness and for some real-world examples.

Well, I'm a materialistic-deist, so sorry to waste your time.

 

[cpolk]

Yes, but how can something as essential as the laws of physics have a beginning? Isn't this in effect saying there was nothing before the Big Bang?

There could have been a massive change, like when I switched from Windows 98 to Windows XP. There were a lot of changes. Some of my programs didn't work at all. Whatever I could or couldn't do in Windows 98 no longer matters, because I am now confined to the operational capacity of Windows XP.

 

[Iacchus]

There could have been a massive change, like when I switched from Windows 98 to Windows XP. There were a lot of changes. Some of my programs didn't work at all. Whatever I could or couldn't do in Windows 98 no longer matters, because I am now confined to the operational capacity of Windows XP.

As if to say Windos XP mysteriously appeared on its own? Come on, you can do better than that. Both you and I know there was a whole bunch of programmers slaving away at a feverish pitch trying to come up with a new version. Of course it couldn't have been improved if it didn't first have the potential (in principle) to be improved now could it?

 

[Iacchus]

Of course what else could this possibly allude to (in my opinion) except for a dimension that exists beyond the realm of time and space ... where, everything is foreknown. Whereas if there is any inkling of truth to this -- hmm ... what is truth anyway? -- we may have just discovered the origin of consciousness, as well as everything else in existence.

 

[cpolk]

As if to say Windos XP mysteriously appeared on its own? Come on, you can do better than that. Both you and I know there was a whole bunch of programmers slaving away at a feverish pitch trying to come up with a new version. Of course it couldn't have been improved if it didn't first have the potential (in principle) to be improved now could it?

From the perspective of the computer, that's pure speculation, and purely irrelevant. All that matters at this point is that now it is operating on Windows XP.

Some people would argue about how much of an improvement it is.

On that note: My computer automatically updates. Does that count as learning?

LOL - I kid. All of those questions I had asked in the previous were also hypothetical.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Yes, I think human consciousness can be replicated artificially. The most basic real world example does not exist. Calculaters or computers are not self-aware.

Okay, but I'm not asking about self-awareness specifically, unless you think that is an absolute requirement for any form of consciousness - unlike your associates who believe toilet cisterns to have a rudimentary form of consciousness.

It seems our discussion might turn into an argument over the definition of faith.

And kudos for trying to keep tract of all the various arguments.

Thank you. But scientific faith is different from religious faith. In the textbooks on my shelf, I expect the experiments and research described therein to have actually occurred. Whether the Buddha really achieved Enlightenment or whether Jesus was the Son of God (or himself Enlightened) is entirely a subjective matter of faith.

There seems to be no single materialistic view of consciousness. Some think it's EM radiation, some think it's information processing, but ultimately it's all theoretical. Nobody is explaining why they think information processing or EM radiation is consciousness or why these things produce awareness.

Yet, nobody at all will admit that it's faith...
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Okay, but I'm not asking about self-awareness specifically, unless you think that is an absolute requirement for any form of consciousness - unlike your associates who believe toilet cisterns to have a rudimentary form of consciousness.

Define conciousness. You must define it before we can tell you what the minimum requirement for it is. Since you keep shifting the definition and refusing to stick with one, as well as changing definitions mid sentence just to make someone look bad, it is no wonder things are as they are.

Thank you. But scientific faith is different from religious faith. In the textbooks on my shelf, I expect the experiments and research described therein to have actually occurred. Whether the Buddha really achieved Enlightenment or whether Jesus was the Son of God (or himself Enlightened) is entirely a subjective matter of faith.

There seems to be no single materialistic view of consciousness. Some think it's EM radiation, some think it's information processing, but ultimately it's all theoretical. Nobody is explaining why they think information processing or EM radiation is consciousness or why these things produce awareness.

Yet, nobody at all will admit that it's faith...
_
HypnoPsi

First of all, who things it is EM radiation? I don't recall that argument in this thread. Second of all, science is entirely made up of theories.

Lastly, if you can't agree on a common definition of conciousness, what is the point? If you ask us to define it and then say what has it, you can't disagree based on some other definition.

 

[PixyMisa]

But scientific faith is different from religious faith.

In that there is no such thing.

There seems to be no single materialistic view of consciousness. Some think it's EM radiation

Who?

some think it's information processing, but ultimately it's all theoretical.

No. There is a immense body of experimental data backing this up.

Nobody is explaining why they think information processing or EM radiation is consciousness or why these things produce awareness.

I can't speak for the radiation people, whoever they might, but we have indeed explained why consciousness is information processing, and how this produces awareness. You just aren't paying attention.

Yet, nobody at all will admit that it's faith...

Because it isn't.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Because (a) your categorisation of people is dishonest (because the ideas are not western, not atheist, not necessarily materialist, and only skeptical in the broadest sense of the term), (b) it isn't faith-based, but observation-based (the broadest sense of skepticism),

I use the term "Western" to contrast it against Eastern atheism which would, most claim, include Buddhism. As for "atheist-materialist skeptics" that is the group who's responses I'm looking for to understand their views of consciousness. I think you're being too pedantic.

and (c) we have explicitly stated what consciousness is and what causes it.

Actually, you've not all been saying the exact same thing. You personally have been quite clear, consistent, coherent and unwavering though, in that you think consciousness is information processing. I might not agree with you, but I appreciate you giving a straight answer.

A thermometer does not process information.

Okay, but mousetraps, thermostats and cisterns all do. So that's your difference. You've been clear on that point. Now I'd like to know how you deduced it's the processing of information that's important. And why you think this produces (or is) awareness (even if that awareness may be extremely rudimentary and limited to just one variable)?

At hand, I have both a scientific calculator and a basic calculator (both of which have a memory function allowing calculations involving constants). Would you say these devices are ever conscious (presumably when turned on and performing a calculation), at however rudimentary a level, with the scientific calculator being more conscious?

I would.

Okay. That's very... you. How do you explain the lack of agreement among atheist-materialists?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

If I choose to define the word "consciousness", in my thought process, as to equate to information processing, then I am not a WAMS, I am a person who has made the choice to define an unclear term in a way that I can use.

I'm not sure I follow. I'm looking for the atheist-materialist account of conscious awareness - specifically the most basic example they can provide. You say you're not a WAMS but you certainly seem to be an atheist-materialist, yes?

My definition of "awareness" is specifically intended to eliminate the need for faith-based explanations. It is a purely mechanical, natural, and in the case of you and me, biological process.

I'm not equating faith-based with supernatural here.

Something to consider is purpose - does a calculator need self-awareness? The automated toilets, which are self-aware in the respect that they can perform their own diagnostics, interact with their surroundings independently, distinguish between itself and the user, and communicate their needs in the form of diagnostic reports, are at least as much so as, say, insects, right?

Well, I don't believe that any type of machinery is conscious at all, but I understand that you do and (most of) your logic. Insects... I'd say have some limited form of consciousness.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[PixyMisa]

Okay. That's very... you. How do you explain the lack of agreement among atheist-materialists?

I dunno. Tell me who these atheist-materialists are and I'll see if I can give you an answer.

 

[PixyMisa]

I use the term "Western" to contrast it against Eastern atheism which would, most claim, include Buddhism.

Why?

As for "atheist-materialist skeptics" that is the group who's responses I'm looking for to understand their views of consciousness. I think you're being too pedantic.

Atheism has nothing to do with it. Skepticism has nothing to do with it. Materialism does have something to do with it, though even that is not essential, as naturalism gives exactly the same answers.

If you want to understand the materialist position on consciousness, ask about that. But this "Western atheist materialist skeptic" thing is just something you have constructed to lump everyone who disagrees with you together in one category. What's more, it is false, as has already been pointed out.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

We haven't been consistant in our definitions because you seem to be all over the place yourself.

Also, because the common definition of conciousness isn't all that clearly defined to begin with.

However, we can work with whatever definition you want to use.

Changing the definition of the word won't suddenly apply magical properties to objects. Changing it so it includes gravel won't make the gravel capable of triangulating a vector. Changing the definition of a word only changes the word itself.

 

[cpolk]

You say you're not a WAMS but you certainly seem to be an atheist-materialist, yes?

I am a human-being.

I'm not equating faith-based with supernatural here.

There is a difference between making an assumption as a hypothesis and taking an assumption on faith.

Well, I don't believe that any type of machinery is conscious at all, but I understand that you do and (most of) your logic. Insects... I'd say have some limited form of consciousness.

Do you believe that machines process information? If so, then you believe they are aware by the definition I used, which you asked for. If you wanted to use a different definition, then you should have said so from the beginning.

You are playing dirty pool.