Regarding Franko...

[Guest]

The math doesn't matter

No, at the end of the day all that matters is that people treat other people with love and respect.

But if, as I once did, you happen to have an agenda which involves trying to castrate creationism, then rival theories matter a great deal.

 

[hammegk]

...How can you have a mental sphere independent of consciousness?

Do you by chance suggest "consciousness" *is* "what-exists"?

 

[Guest]

Do you by chance suggest "consciousness" *is* "what-exists"?

I have been heading in that general direction with recent posts. If "consciousness" *is* "what-exists" then the two remaining questions nullify each other. You no longer have to explain what breathed life into the mathematical model and made it a physical world, and you no longer have to explain how consciousness arises from this physical world. Our two questions seem to have been reduced to one i.e. What is the source of the conciousness?

 

[scribble]

I have been heading in that general direction with recent posts. If "consciousness" *is* "what-exists" then the two remaining questions nullify each other. You no longer have to explain what breathed life into the mathematical model and made it a physical world, and you no longer have to explain how consciousness arises from this physical world. Our two questions seem to have been reduced to one i.e. What is the source of the conciousness?

The answer to your question "What is the source of consciousness" is quite simple for materialists.

What's your answer?

-Chris

 

[Guest]

The answer to your question "What is the source of consciousness" is quite simple for materialists.

As is the answer to the question "What is the source of the physical world" for Biblical Literalists.

What's your answer?

To the question 'What is the source of this consciousness?"

Well, I have two options :

1) The consciousness has multiple sources.
2) The consciousness has only one source.

How do I decide which?

Well, for a start, (2) is more parsimonious. An addition to this I can make an observation that the mystical traditions which exist in so many different religions and philosophies are united in agreeing with (2) and disagreeing with (1). Indeed the the only philosophical position which insists on (1) is materialism, which must do because it is a logical neccesity following on from the starting tenets of materialism. But since at this point in the logical thought process we have already bypassed the need for materialism, we are not bound by the same neccessity.

So my answer is that consciousness has only one source. This then opens an entirely new arena of philosophical questions : We must now think about the relationship between individuality and unity, which leads us to questions about ethics and human rights.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I only hope Franko is locked up, committed into a psychiatric ward before he harms another person.... if he hasn't already. Has anyone seen the movie "Frailty"?

 

[hammegk]

The answer to your question "What is the source of consciousness" is quite simple for materialists.

-Chris

LOL. Yeah, the answer is "We don't know, but have faith in materialism-in-the-gaps".

 

[scribble]

As is the answer to the question "What is the source of the physical world" for Biblical Literalists.

As is any answer in any framework designed to provide answers. That was a good answer, Geoff. I'm glad that you seem to have progressed as a debator since I addressed you last.

To the question 'What is the source of this consciousness?"

To the question, but when will we arrive? You didn't answer "What is the source," you answered, "How many sources are there," which to me is an uninteresting question in itself.

Well, I have two options :

1) The consciousness has multiple sources.
2) The consciousness has only one source.

This dichotomy isn't directly relevant to my question. You could pick any dichotomy to present and ask how it relates to consciousness and give an answer and you still have not told me the source of consciousness.

Well, for a start, (2) is more parsimonious.

By definition. So?

An addition to this I can make an observation that the mystical traditions which exist in so many different religions and philosophies are united in agreeing with (2) and disagreeing with (1). Indeed the the only philosophical position which insists on (1) is materialism, which must do because it is a logical neccesity following on from the starting tenets of materialism.

I *just* read another post by you in which you claimed that the number of people holding a belief is no argument for that belief. Don't make me go find it and quote it here. I've read a lot of threads in the last few hours.

But since at this point in the logical thought process we have already bypassed the need for materialism, we are not bound by the same neccessity.

You are pointing out here that I have entered into an argument in which we examine the nature of reality, thus assuming materialism would be defeating the purpose of the discussion.

I am aware of that.

So my answer is that consciousness has only one source.

Okay, but that's you answering yourself. I'm not interested in that. Perhaps your answer to my question would lead me to find interest in this answer.

This then opens an entirely new arena of philosophical questions : We must now think about the relationship between individuality and unity, which leads us to questions about ethics and human rights. [/B]

Well, yes. If you assume that we are literally "all connected," then you have a lot of fascinating questions to ask and answer. But I'm not here to assume. I'm here to find Truth.

Yes, I know some people think that's not possible. Let me have my folly.

-Chris

 

[scribble]

LOL. Yeah, the answer is "We don't know, but have faith in materialism-in-the-gaps".

Not at all, but that comment did make me chuckle, and serves as a good reminder that we must be careful to seek answers, and not assume them.

-Chris

 

[Guest]

Okay, but that's you answering yourself.

I was explaining the logical thought process I followed in order to arrive at my answer to your question.

I'm not interested in that.

Well, I think that understanding the set of logical steps one follows to arrive at an answer is essential if one is going to understand the answer. Otherwise any truth you find must be taken on faith.

Perhaps your answer to my question would lead me to find interest in this answer.

Well, we now arrive at the other half of my original answer to Luci regarding the triggers of my change in thought. The mystical traditions underlying not only early Christianity but many other religious and philosphical schools are directly concerned with providing answers to the question 'What is the source of consciousness'. Those traditions are based upon subjective reflection i.e. the inner exploration of consciousness. So my reply to you is that the answer is likely be found within ones own consciousness, and the search is likely to be assisted by taking some time to study the answers provided by the many different schools of philosophy that posit a single source of consciousness. I am loathe to provide a short but inadequate answer. It is your search for truth, not mine. I am supplying only a signpost. It is for you to decide whether or not that signpost is of any use to you.

Well, yes. If you assume that we are literally "all connected," then you have a lot of fascinating questions to ask and answer. But I'm not here to assume. I'm here to find Truth.

The 'all connected' wasn't an assumption. It was tentative conclusion based upon parsimony in the face of an either/or question and upon the testimony of nearly all individuals who have attempted to study consciousness subjectively. The alternative to this 'assumption' would be that consciousness is "not all connected", and this leaves me with a need to explain how many different consciousnesses with "not connected" sources manage to end up experiencing a rather obviously "all connected" consensus reality. So I have a choice between an apparently dead-end stalemate or "a lot of fascinating questions to ask and answer." Which 'assumption' do you think is most likely to shed further light on this Truth you seek?

 

[thaiboxerken]

The 'all connected' wasn't an assumption. It was tentative conclusion based upon parsimony in the face of an either/or question and upon the testimony of nearly all individuals who have attempted to study consciousness subjectively. The alternative to this 'assumption' would be that consciousness is "not all connected", and this leaves me with a need to explain how many different consciousnesses with "not connected" sources manage to end up experiencing a rather obviously "all connected" consensus reality.

No, it is more likely that consciousness is a product of the brain. It's also easy to see that this "all connected" consensus reality is merely a product of social teaching and cultures. There is no evidence of god. There is no evidence that all of our consciousness is connected. You are merely building conclusions off of some strange religious teachings.

 

[Franko]

Mobius: (Scribble)
I *just* read another post by you in which you claimed that the number of people holding a belief is no argument for that belief. Don't make me go find it and quote it here. I've read a lot of threads in the last few hours.

Are you accusing the Elephant of a double standard?

His actions inconsistent with his stated beliefs???

Okay, but that's you answering yourself. I'm not interested in that. Perhaps your answer to my question would lead me to find interest in this answer.

You are a Graviton, Mobius.

Let me ask you a question ... in what way do you exist when YOU do not perceive Time?

 

[Zombified]

The 'all connected' wasn't an assumption. It was tentative conclusion based upon parsimony in the face of an either/or question and upon the testimony of nearly all individuals who have attempted to study consciousness subjectively. The alternative to this 'assumption' would be that consciousness is "not all connected", and this leaves me with a need to explain how many different consciousnesses with "not connected" sources manage to end up experiencing a rather obviously "all connected" consensus reality. So I have a choice between an apparently dead-end stalemate or "a lot of fascinating questions to ask and answer." Which 'assumption' do you think is most likely to shed further light on this Truth you seek?

I suggest the parsimonious solution is to drop the assumption that reality is a matter of consensus. No assumption of connectedness is required if there is no opportunity to percieve reality differently from anyone else.

Or, if you prefer, that the connection between consciousnesses is simply that they exist in the same real world.

 

[Franko]

Zombie,

I suggest the parsimonious solution is to drop the assumption that reality is a matter of consensus.

Obviously reality is NOT decided by majority vote.

That is like having a network where every PC is hardwired (direct connect) to every other one.

No assumption of connectedness is required if there is no opportunity to percieve reality differently from anyone else.

The ability to perceive reality differently from everyone else is called Relativity.

Or, if you prefer, that the connection between consciousnesses is simply that they exist in the same real world.

Here is how it works, imagine a whole bunch of networked PC’s – you, me, everybody else we see around (gestures). Okay, at the top you have the server (God). We are all connected to Her, and She relays information between each of us. There is no voting on reality, the Server decides.

 

[scribble]

I was explaining the logical thought process I followed in order to arrive at my answer to your question.

An answer that's still pending, I see.

Well, I think that understanding the set of logical steps one follows to arrive at an answer is essential if one is going to understand the answer. Otherwise any truth you find must be taken on faith.

Yes, but typically you present the answer first. Then if it's not immediately obvious to me how you got there, we can start a dialogue on the hows and whys.

Well, we now arrive at the other half of my original answer to Luci regarding the triggers of my change in thought. The mystical traditions underlying not only early Christianity but many other religious and philosphical schools are directly concerned with providing answers to the question 'What is the source of consciousness'. Those traditions are based upon subjective reflection i.e. the inner exploration of consciousness.

I don't particularly care how you changed; I'm still looking for the answer.

So my reply to you is that the answer is likely be found within ones own consciousness, and the search is likely to be assisted by taking some time to study the answers provided by the many different schools of philosophy that posit a single source of consciousness.

So you find the answers by searching, you say. Except, Geoff, I did search, I tried all kinds of new-agey single-source philosophies, introspection, meditation, you name it, I've been there. I did not find answers there. YOu claim you did. Again, I'm in the position of begging you for an answer and not getting it. Instead you give me, "the answer is out there." Well, I looked out there, I didn't see it. I'm begging you to tell us what you found that the rest of us missed.

I am loathe to provide a short but inadequate answer.

So you'll go for no answer at all? Thanks.

It is your search for truth, not mine. I am supplying only a signpost. It is for you to decide whether or not that signpost is of any use to you.

It ain't. BEcause as I said, I just came from the direction that signpost was pointing, and there wasn't any Truth at the end of the road.

I'm sure you're going to say I didn't walk down the road far enough. That's a "No-True-Scotsman" move. Trust me, I put in the hours. I found no answer that was viable. If you have found one, I ask you -- again -- to share it.

I've been begging you for answers like this for over a year now. It gets pretty frustrating.

The 'all connected' wasn't an assumption. It was tentative conclusion based upon parsimony in the face of an either/or question and upon the testimony of nearly all individuals who have attempted to study consciousness subjectively. The alternative to this 'assumption' would be that consciousness is "not all connected", and this leaves me with a need to explain how many different consciousnesses with "not connected" sources manage to end up experiencing a rather obviously "all connected" consensus reality.

If you are using the word "Parsimony" to mean "the law of parsimony," as in Ocham's Razor, drop it. YOur argument is not supported by it. If you do not mean Ocham's Razor, then I ask you: What has parsimony got to do with it? That's hardly an indicator of what is reality.

Your "need to explain how many individuals can experience the same reality" is bordering on nonsense. Perhaps it would make more sense to me if you would answer my initial question: what is consciousness? We are all part of the same reality, thus it makes perfect sense to assume we would all experience it similarly.

So I have a choice between an apparently dead-end stalemate or "a lot of fascinating questions to ask and answer." Which 'assumption' do you think is most likely to shed further light on this Truth you seek? [/B]

Hey, I have to admit, I'm a bit lost. What's the dead-end? And how does a philosophy being interesting (ie leading to lots of questions and answers) have a bearing on it's applicability to reality?

And how is this getting me any closer to an answer to "what is consciousness?"

Must I beg -- again?

-Chris

 

[PixyMisa]

To the question 'What is the source of this consciousness?"

Well, I have two options :

1) The consciousness has multiple sources.
2) The consciousness has only one source.

How do I decide which?

Well, for a start, (2) is more parsimonious. An addition to this I can make an observation that the mystical traditions which exist in so many different religions and philosophies are united in agreeing with (2) and disagreeing with (1). Indeed the the only philosophical position which insists on (1) is materialism, which must do because it is a logical neccesity following on from the starting tenets of materialism.

What strange version of materialism is this?

Materialism says the material world is real; that there is no need for a non-material explanation for any phenomenon. So consciousness arises from the material world. One source. There is and can be no other source in the materialist philosphy.

There are, however, multiple consciousnesses. And given that materialism says that the material world is real, we have no problem with our observations of individuals perceiving the same reality.

You only see a problem with materialism here because you are trying to use it to explain something which makes no sense in a materialist philosophy.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Let me ask you a question ... in what way do you exist when YOU do not perceive Time?

When asleep.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Zombie,
Obviously reality is NOT decided by majority vote.

This is true


The ability to perceive reality differently from everyone else is called Relativity.

This is false, the theory of Relatively has been greatly twisted in meaning by you.


Here is how it works, imagine a whole bunch of networked PC’s – you, me, everybody else we see around (gestures). Okay, at the top you have the server (God). We are all connected to Her, and She relays information between each of us. There is no voting on reality, the Server decides.

This is just another dumb statement by the garbage man.

 

[Guest]

Thaiboxerken said :

No, it is more likely that consciousness is a product of the brain. It's also easy to see that this "all connected" consensus reality is merely a product of social teaching and cultures. There is no evidence of god. There is no evidence that all of our consciousness is connected. You are merely building conclusions off of some strange religious teachings.

I guess from this reply you didn't read the previous few posts. I described a set of logical steps - there was no reference to any religious teaching, and no mention of God. I have summarised below the logical steps I followed and why I ended up at the conclusion I ended up at.


Zombified :

Or, if you prefer, that the connection between consciousnesses is simply that they exist in the same real world.

I have to give you the same reply as Ken. It's not much use just reading the post you responded to - I had already explained why your suggestion does not work having followed the logic I followed.


Here is a summary :

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luci :

What was the beggining of your conversion history?

UE :

Two things were extremely relevant. One was the realisation that mathematical structures self-exist without the need for a creator

Luci :

Care to elaborate ?

UE :

Numbers are inevitable. The Primes cannot have been any different to what they are. They are a fixed set of fundamental relationships. The integers can be extracted by applying basic logic to the empty set. Further applications of very simple logic to the integers can provide any amount of complexity you like. None of this requires as designer because it all self-exists - it just waits to be discovered. The implications of this are massive. Last year Stephen Wolfram published a book called 'A New Kind of Science' which describes how patterns of immense complexity can emerge from cellular automata - complex enough to represent all the complexity we see in physical and biological nature. All of that is also implied to self-exists as potential and all without any need for a designer. There are only two things missing from the picture now. One, as Hawking put it, is something to breathe life into the model and make it physically existent. The other is an explanation as to how this physically existent Universe gives rise to consciousness - or what consciousness is. The rest of Reality is accounted for. But it seemed to me that something like this had to figure as part of a 'theory of everything'. It seemed to me that we hard started from nothing (literally) and got at least half way to explaining existence using only logic. At the time I was actively involved in fighting creationists, hence my involvement with the secular web. It seemed to me a rather powerful weapon in the fight against creationism to have a theory which accounted for all forms of design without a designer.

Rather later I realised that the two questions remaining could be viewed as cancelling each other out, a knot and an anti-knot on a piece of rope which could be brought together to leave a piece of string with no knots at all.

Hammegk :

Do you by chance suggest "consciousness" *is* "what-exists"?

UE :

I have been heading in that general direction with recent posts. If "consciousness" *is* "what-exists" then the two remaining questions nullify each other. You no longer have to explain what breathed life into the mathematical model and made it a physical world, and you no longer have to explain how consciousness arises from this physical world. Our two questions seem to have been reduced to one i.e. What is the source of the conciousness?

I have two options :

1) The consciousness has multiple sources.
2) The consciousness has only one source.

How do I decide which?

Well, for a start, (2) is more parsimonious. An addition to this I can make an observation that the mystical traditions which exist in so many different religions and philosophies are united in agreeing with (2) and disagreeing with (1). Indeed the the only philosophical position which insists on (1) is materialism, which must do because it is a logical neccesity following on from the starting tenets of materialism. But since at this point in the logical thought process we have already bypassed the need for materialism, we are not bound by the same neccessity.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Just to make it even clearer : The entire unspoken sub-text to Wolframs book is that the future of science is to regard the physical world as an iterative algorithm which self-exists as part of mathematics. Wolfram can hardly be said to be a religious nut - the man openly even despises philosophy (his mother was an Oxford philosophy professor). So all I am doing is going from "let us regard the physical world as a simple iterative algorithm" to "we have no need to believe the physical world is anything more than a simple iterative algorithm". (And why should we regard it as anything more? We do not experience a physical world - we experience a mental representation of a physical world - as every post-Kantian philosopher and anyone who has ever taken acid can confirm to you). And I do this because there seem to be two clear benefits to doing so : We negate the need to explain the origin of a physically existing Universe and we simultaneously bypass the requirement to solve Chalmers 'Hard Problem Conciousness'. The only 'problem' with this is that it opens the door to challenges to belief systems dependent on materialism. Personally, I do not find this problematic because I feel no attachment to any specific belief system - I prefer unfettered logic. I see no reason to feel threatened by mysticism. If other people do, then that is their business and I have absolutely no intention of convincing them otherwise. My only interest is in explaining why my own position is dependent purely on logic, and not on a belief system or any form of religious or philosophical dogma. I politely ask that people actually examine my logic, rather than simply accuse me of following an [unspecified] religious system. Right now I am simultaneiusly being accused by Frankenstein of being an atheist and by Ken of trying to provide evidence for the existence of God. The Truth is I have offered no opinion on the existence of God, and the position I have outlined can be said to underlie both theistic and atheistic forms of mysticism. My stated position is NEUTRAL regarding the existence of God. Chris asked what the source of consciousness is. As an atheist I could answer 'The Void'. As a theist I could answer 'God'. I have provided neither answer, and I have no intention of being drawn on the issue.



Scribble :

Must I beg -- again?

Chris - you are claiming that you have already "investigated" mysticism. If this is true, then you should already know the answer to the most central question it addresses. If it wasn't to your liking, then what makes you think it would be any more to your liking if I repeated it to you here?

My answer to you is that there is a single source of all consciousness and that more can be learned by personal investigation. That *IS* the answer. It is no use 'begging' for a more specific one, because a more specific one is not appropriate. It is neccesarily a personal choice and personal journey if you want to take it any further, or not as the case may be.


PixyMisa :

What strange version of materialism is this?

Materialism says the material world is real; that there is no need for a non-material explanation for any phenomenon. So consciousness arises from the material world. One source. There is and can be no other source in the materialist philosphy.

As with Ken and Zombie, it might clarify if you read the summary above. Your statement indicates you didn't follow the logical steps I followed. Each individual brain is an individual source of a seperated consciousness under any form of materialism.

There are, however, multiple consciousnesses. And given that materialism says that the material world is real, we have no problem with our observations of individuals perceiving the same reality.

Agreed - but I refer you again to my summary.

You only see a problem with materialism here because you are trying to use it to explain something which makes no sense in a materialist philosophy.

I am not motivated by a perceived problem with materialism. Please read the summary - specifically the piece about the 'knot' and 'anti-knot', how I got there and why I believe they must cancel each other out.

-------------------

NOTE TO ALL :

I am not on a misson to 'convert' anyone. I was responding to Luci and Hammegk who asked me about how and why I moved beyond purely scientific thinking. I am happy to explain my logic and provide supporting evidence where neccesary. But endless repetitions are not my style - you don't want another Franko. I have repeated my logic once only because various people may not have read the lead-in posts to the one about unified consciousness. You must understand the mathematical platonism before you can follow the rest. And I might add that mathematical platonism is not "some strange religious teaching".

 

[PixyMisa]

Just to make it even clearer : The entire unspoken sub-text to Wolframs book is that the future of science is to regard the physical world as an iterative algorithm which self-exists as part of mathematics.

Erk.

Does Wolfram actually say that the network of cellular automata self-exisists? You say that this is an "unspoken subtext". Is there any reason to believe that it self-exists the way mathematics does?

And I do this because there seem to be two clear benefits to doing so : We negate the need to explain the origin of a physically existing Universe and we simultaneously bypass the requirement to solve Chalmers 'Hard Problem Conciousness'.

Actually, we do neither.

You still need to explain how this network of cellular automata arose - or why we can reasonably assume it self-exists, and how its computations give rise to consciousness. You've simply moved the questions, not answered them.

The only 'problem' with this is that it opens the door to challenges to belief systems dependent on materialism.

How?

Personally, I do not find this problematic because I feel no attachment to any specific belief system - I prefer unfettered logic.

Logic must be fettered by fact or it will lead everywhere and nowhere - and you will be unable to tell which is which.

My answer to you is that there is a single source of all consciousness and that more can be learned by personal investigation. That *IS* the answer. It is no use 'begging' for a more specific one, because a more specific one is not appropriate. It is neccesarily a personal choice and personal journey if you want to take it any further, or not as the case may be.

But materialism also gives a single source of all consciousness and doesn't require these bizarre leaps of faith.

As with Ken and Zombie, it might clarify if you read the summary above. Your statement indicates you didn't follow the logical steps I followed.

Um... Nope.

I followed the part about mathematics self-existing. Good stuff. Then you listed two hard problems, and then you claimed that if you assume something - unspecified - that the two problems cancelled out.

Each individual brain is an individual source of a seperated consciousness under any form of materialism.

Well, yeah.

Agreed - but I refer you again to my summary.

I've read it twice now.

And it still doesn't make sense.

You assumed something that solved all your philosphical problems. Well, that's nice. We materialists will get on with solving the real problems.

You must understand the mathematical platonism before you can follow the rest. And I might add that mathematical platonism is not "some strange religious teaching".

Well, I can agree with this last bit, anyway.

Oh, yeah: mysticism n. Vague, groundless speculation.