Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rubbercok3000 · 02-19-2003, 11:28 AM

If there is no God and a scientific deterministic viewpoint is accepted, what is consciousness. Epiphenomena of matter? Comments........

Wiploc · 02-19-2003, 08:49 PM

I can't explain it. This doesn't give the Christians an advantage, though, because they can't explain it either.
crc

rubbercok3000 · 02-19-2003, 09:57 PM

Dont get me wrong on this at all. I am not siding here. Fundamentalist dogmas is not my forte. But really the only scientific and rational hope for any semblance for life after death is an understanding of consciousness itself. If we just spent the money used for religious war on consciousness research who knows what we would find out. No religion has it objectively true just as no scientist or atheist can explain the "why" either. Just a good idea to reduce the meditations to the fundental problem of "Why the fuck do I know I exist"?

Frotiw · 02-20-2003, 01:13 PM

If the project is to explain consciousness in objective scientifical terms then I think the project is dead from the start. If anything can be caractherized as subjective it has be consciousness. How will you ever explain subjectivity objective? That is like explaining infinity in finite terms. Oh BTW I am atheist and determinist.

AnthonyAdams45 · 02-20-2003, 01:47 PM

Try consciousness as intentionality. Intentionality is compatible with determinism and free will, can be describe through purely physical means or mental means. Metaphorically, it can be extended to all living things, though not unliving, making the unique human condition, self-intentionality, i.e., self-consciousness. As it can be seen at some level in all living things, an evolutionary account seems simple enough to trace out.

Try Ideas byt Edmund Husserl.

Frotiw · 02-20-2003, 02:02 PM

Hurray.

I usually point at Husserl in such discussions as well. I Think the best way is a joint effort between phenomenological investigations(transcendental intentionality "pointing" at external object) and analytical philosophy of consciousness. The analytic method will be used to clear up confused concept and strighten the varius "projects" e.g. clear up exactly what methaphysics are about. Phenomenology will be used explained the impossibilty of solving the mind/body problem due to the impossibility of reducing intententionality to object and vise versa. This is actually what intend to write my next grand assignment about(BA). Oh I happend to be complety in luck since there will be a thematic seminar about philosophy of consciousness starting tomorrow featureing among others Ned Block, Dan Zahawi, and other speaking purely about this topic

.

rubbercok3000 · 02-20-2003, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Oh BTW I am atheist and determinist.

So how does the scientific derminist explain quantum and non locality of electron movement. Electron 1 in space time simaltaneously effects another without any transference of time or movement in space.

Frotiw · 02-20-2003, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rubbercok3000
So how does the scientific derminist explain quantum and non locality of electron movement. Electron 1 in space time simaltaneously effects another without any transference of time or movement in space.

1. First of all I don't know as much as I would like to about modern physics. I will not pretend to be student of modern physics. I know a little in the issues concern philosophy e.g. subatomar indeterminacy and that is it.

I agree(obviosly) that there are a paradoxical situation concerning determinsm in modern quantum physics. But Im not convinced the problems will be most satisfactory solved by rejecting determism. I think I commit myself to the Einsteinian stance that nature still is dertermistic but we have not yet reached to most fundamental microlevel. Yes subatomic does not seem deterministic as well as e.g. the decay of radioactive materials does not. But I believe it is far easier though to believe that science is uncomplete and need to reach a new "underlaying" deterministic level below the quantum level.
I think consequent thought of indeterminacy is incomprehendable. Not because of empiracal science but philosophical reasons. I can easily accept the thought that we do not know what act came to realize a certain isolated effect in an causal-chain but the thought that there never was an act to begin with seems imcomprehendable to me. The consequence of determanism is that an act is alway caused by one another act before that act. This chain goes back and in time and will continue in future. The rejection of determanism must mean that an act can occur without one starting it. This seems highly implausible.
Concerning the -in question appearant quantum indetermanacy:
I believe som "scientifical examples of indeterminacy" can be solved. Heisenberg(Bohr's student) who wrote about the appearent indetermany in quantum states indicated by the fact that it was never posible to fully measure a subatomic system. Either speed or spartial location of an electron could be measured accuratly not both. Thus one could easily think that the particle did not exist in a certain point in space and time. It is quiete straigt forward now though that this is not the case. In reality it is simply a matter of distorted optics. It is simple the optics used to measure the electron which corrupt the accuracy of the data.
I can easily accept the point that scientific optics are and perhaps will always be(Laplace) inadquate to demonstrate full causallity but this does not mean that causallity isn't true. If close my eyes or wear distorted glasses I might not see the sun but it will be there.

Finally as a foodnote: Indeterminacy is often used in an attempt to defend stances cerning e.g. the free will or personal identity. I once read that presumably the free will could be "saved" if the sumatomar leve is indetermanistic. I don't understand why. Why is the will free if it act for NO REASON. Subatomar components seems to change random(indeterministic) thus the will might not be control by lowlevel physics. Ok but is this really desirable? Instead of having a will slaved by quantum physics it will be slaved by incomprehenable RANDOMNESS. Im not sure what's worse? Causality in the mental acts or complete randomness in the mental acts. I don't see how the will -will become more "free" if it is the victem of true chaos.

I hope I make sence othervise ask if you feel like it. I had to type very quickly it's getting late.

Cheers.

rubbercok3000 · 02-20-2003, 04:48 PM

So what is the first cause as a determinist sees it. If its all a big chain and non locality of electrons is simply because they are not the smallest thing out there, what is the "ground" of being? Is that God? The first cause?

excreationist · 02-20-2003, 05:03 PM

Frotiw: What do you think about the following?

This is some stuff I've written earlier... basically I have defined two kinds of things - "awareness" - which is a more basic animal-type of thing - and "consciousness" - which is a more developed human type of thing.

Quote:

The hierarchy of intelligent systems:

1. Processing Systems [or Programmed Systems]
...receive [or detect], process and respond to input.

2. Aware Systems
...receive input and respond according to its goals/desires and beliefs learnt through experience about how the world works
(self-motivated, acting on self-learnt beliefs)
["self" refers to the system as a whole]

This learning can lead to more sophisticated self-motivated intelligence. This is taken straight from Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development. I hope to eventually integrate this with my generalized framework.

2. Sensorimotor stage (Infancy).
In this period (which has 6 stages), intelligence is demonstrated through motor activity without the use of symbols. Knowledge of the world is limited (but developing) because its based on physical interactions / experiences. Children acquire object permanence at about 7 months of age (memory). Physical development (mobility) allows the child to begin developing new intellectual abilities. Some symbollic (language) abilities are developed at the end of this stage.

3. Pre-operational stage (Toddler and Early Childhood).
In this period (which has two substages), intelligence is demonstrated through the use of symbols, language use matures, and memory and imagination are developed, but thinking is done in a nonlogical, nonreversable manner. Egocentric thinking predominates

4. Concrete operational stage (Elementary and early adolescence).
In this stage (characterized by 7 types of conservation: number, length, liquid, mass, weight, area, volume), intelligence is demonstarted through logical and systematic manipulation of symbols related to concrete objects. Operational thinking develops (mental actions that are reversible). Egocentric thought diminishes.

5. Formal operational stage (Adolescence and adulthood).
In this stage, intelligence is demonstrated through the logical use of symbols related to abstract concepts. Early in the period there is a return to egocentric thought. Only 35% of high school graduates in industrialized countries obtain formal operations; many people do not think formally during adulthood.

Quote:

Qualia - Idiosyncratic encoded sensory data (early definition)

Quote:

If being an organic system is not a necessary condition for states of consciousness then what is necessary?
=======================================

This is my definition for an aware system:

"...it receives input and responds according to its goals/desires and beliefs learnt through experience about how the world works
(self-motivated, acting on self-learnt beliefs ["self" refers to the system as a whole])"

Now to work out what it would need:

"receives input"
A sub-system that extracts features from the external environment (e.g. red, green and blue light intensity detectors)

"responds"
Uses motors or muscles or something that allows it to interact with the external environment in order to test its beliefs, etc.

"according to its goals/desires and beliefs learnt through experience about how the world works"
It has long-term memories that it has accumulated that it uses to predict what it needs to do in order to attempt to satisfy its fundamental drives (e.g. seek newness, seek coherence, avoid frustration, avoid bodily injury) This learning/motivational part is pretty complex...
=============================
...But the question is, what are the necessary conditions for having beliefs, desires, and intentional actions...
===========================
- beliefs just involve uncertain or probabilistic knowledge. i.e. they are theoretically capable of changing. (even someone's belief that 2+2=4 is theoretically capable of changing - if they joined the appropriate cult, etc)

- desires would be either fundamental desires (e.g. jerking your foot away from the fire or sucking on something) or desires that are associated with fundamental desires. They are the goals.

- intentional actions are actions that are done in order to seek those goals. Those behaviours have been associated with the goals as results.

The reason why something can have (ownership of) those things is because it would have accumulated those things through its "own" experiences. e.g. a cow learns that electric fences hurt through experience (I think) - those beliefs aren't programmed in (by humans or by their DNA). So it becomes the *cow's* belief that future brushes with the fence will result in the urge to avoid the situation. So it stays away from the fence in order to avoid the situation of itself brushing the fence. The fundamental desires aren't learnt though. I think examples of human ones include the need for some coherence/resonance, some newness, relief from tension (relaxation), the need to avoid frustration (seeking goals in the same dead-end way) and avoiding physical injury.

02-19-2003, 11:28 AM	#1
rubbercok3000 Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Nebraska Posts: 119	What is consciousness? If there is no God and a scientific deterministic viewpoint is accepted, what is consciousness. Epiphenomena of matter? Comments........

02-19-2003, 08:49 PM	#2
Wiploc Contributor Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Alaska! Posts: 14,058	Re: What is consciousness? I can't explain it. This doesn't give the Christians an advantage, though, because they can't explain it either. crc

02-20-2003, 02:02 PM	#6
Frotiw Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Denmark Posts: 122	Hurray. I usually point at Husserl in such discussions as well. I Think the best way is a joint effort between phenomenological investigations(transcendental intentionality "pointing" at external object) and analytical philosophy of consciousness. The analytic method will be used to clear up confused concept and strighten the varius "projects" e.g. clear up exactly what methaphysics are about. Phenomenology will be used explained the impossibilty of solving the mind/body problem due to the impossibility of reducing intententionality to object and vise versa. This is actually what intend to write my next grand assignment about(BA). Oh I happend to be complety in luck since there will be a thematic seminar about philosophy of consciousness starting tomorrow featureing among others Ned Block, Dan Zahawi, and other speaking purely about this topic.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-19-2003, 09:57 PM	#3
rubbercok3000 Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Nebraska Posts: 119	Dont get me wrong on this at all. I am not siding here. Fundamentalist dogmas is not my forte. But really the only scientific and rational hope for any semblance for life after death is an understanding of consciousness itself. If we just spent the money used for religious war on consciousness research who knows what we would find out. No religion has it objectively true just as no scientist or atheist can explain the "why" either. Just a good idea to reduce the meditations to the fundental problem of "Why the fuck do I know I exist"?

02-20-2003, 01:13 PM	#4
Frotiw Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Denmark Posts: 122	If the project is to explain consciousness in objective scientifical terms then I think the project is dead from the start. If anything can be caractherized as subjective it has be consciousness. How will you ever explain subjectivity objective? That is like explaining infinity in finite terms. Oh BTW I am atheist and determinist.

02-20-2003, 01:47 PM	#5
AnthonyAdams45 Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Florida Posts: 156	Try consciousness as intentionality. Intentionality is compatible with determinism and free will, can be describe through purely physical means or mental means. Metaphorically, it can be extended to all living things, though not unliving, making the unique human condition, self-intentionality, i.e., self-consciousness. As it can be seen at some level in all living things, an evolutionary account seems simple enough to trace out. Try Ideas byt Edmund Husserl.

02-20-2003, 04:48 PM	#9
rubbercok3000 Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Nebraska Posts: 119	So what is the first cause as a determinist sees it. If its all a big chain and non locality of electrons is simply because they are not the smallest thing out there, what is the "ground" of being? Is that God? The first cause?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.