Second, I haven't challenged your idea yet, because as I keep saying, you so far have not clearly communicated it. I'm challenging your presentation. Presentation and content are inseparable, even for "people who read carefully".
Third, your persecution complex is inventing an enemy out of me. I'm probably the best friend you've got here.
This thread is a bit painful
so far. Sorry Free Thinker. I was purposely bowing out of it. The point in bold has been made several times without really being addressed. If you want to rescue this thread from being a mess of confusion; you might consider focusing on what L6 is trying to say. Consider this post a subtle hint that he is the most knowledgeable person in this thread on the subject at hand, ...
(I'm not saying others in the thread don't have valid points but clearly you are dealing with too many variables, ...) All the discusson of "publishing" were meant to be rhetorical.
I've been sitting on my hands, not responding to the post below, which at least seems to discuss SOMETHING about Science and Awareness that might be able to spawn an interesting disucssing. I think you discussed awareness in the context of A.I. The truth is, we can't model it. That is why the Turing Test looks at the A.I. entity as a black box, ....
Awareness is the only absolute certainty we have.
I can buy this. Sort of a conscious variant of I think therefore I am? (I assume Decartes meant an aware sort of thinking, whereas in modern terms a computer might "think" well not being aware in the sense we are.)
All of science is ultimately based on that basic certainty.
I'm confused about this statement. Sorry, mabye I'm being dense but it seems to me that we believe our senses somewhat as scientists? While we are aware that we are aware, we having no way of knowing whether our senses are lying to us for the most part or not. We assume that they are mostly accurate or at least that they are a good approximation?
As such, I figure Awareness is one Question that science will never be able to fully address, because that would effectively be Awareness trying to prove to itself that it exists.
What I think you are saying is that we cannot observe that another being is aware. We have no meas of directly observing awareness and playing with trial and error on somebody's brain might not work. (The person would not "know" when he has lost awareness?) I'd guess these neuroscienctists must have some theories about it and some heustics that they think implies awareness?
Hope I'm making sense. It is difficult to even talk about awareness. It is such an atomic concept.
I think that all inquiry into this question will indeed reveal a lot about not just ourselves, but of reality as a whole, because we would need to learn about all of reality before coming round full circle to "prove" the one fundamental fact (rather, to bring our understanding of the system to complete consistency*).
Agree, that is very bizare.
* No, this would not violate Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, as complete understanding does not require an axiomatic system1.
I think it would depend on how you define "understanding"
? Goedel's theorem comes into play only if you are trying to determine whether an arbitary statement in a language sufficiently complex to allow all statements about the natural numbers to defined. Again, trying not to be dense here but can't quite fanthom what undersanding might mean in this context.1 - Possibly true but depends on how you define this understanding being complete?