Science and Awareness

[Vynn]

Maybe you didn't, but others have.

Oh. I'm not "others".

I offered an example that seems to make it less likely that being is simply a product of the brain.

I'll take a look.

[L6]

"a bunch of infinitesimals existing at point a then point b is being."
...is so far utterly nonsensical.[1]

1. Its not nonsense:

Your presentation is nonsense. Imagine going back to the stone age and saying, "Our planet is an ellipsoid and traverses an ellipstical trajectory around its sun!" Your audience would treat you the same way we're treating you, because they would simply have no idea what you're trying to say. They don't know what "planet" and "ellipsoid" and "elliptical" and "trajectory" are. So slow down and start from the beginning.

"a bunch" is vague. "infinitesimals", "existing", and "point" require definition, and furthermore appear to simply assume a background of time and space. Given that, all you've done is present a definition that we have no reason to accept; you still would need to make the logical connection between whatever:

"a bunch of infinitesimals existing at point a then point b is..."[2]

2. That is functionally what energy is. Its a way of explaining how a transformation is not the becoming of something new that is different but equal in proportion, but how a transformation is merely the rearrangement of previous energy.

You mean this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_in_physics

I never meant that energy was literally an infinite amount of infinitesmals occupying a closed space, because I don't know if that could be the case.

I'm sorry, I prefer not to guess what people mean, preferring instead they explain it clearly.

...means and:

"...being."[3]

3. Being= the act of being in this universe able to observe, versus consciousness, the illusion that you are in this universe. If awareness is matter and energy, then awareness is an illusion. So, the argument boils down to the question of whether or not it is.

If awareness is an illusion, it is still awareness. There is no need to posit the "existence" of a Platonic substance that is neither matter nor energy. The illusion of thought is thought. The illusion of free will is free will. The illusion of space is space. The illusion of time is time. The illusion of movement is movement. The illusion of being is being. The illusion of awareness is awareness. Adding the word "illusion" to any of these may be valid, but extraneous.

(And your complaint that I'm using stereotypes is just further evidence that you're a crank, because it's a way for you to cry persecution.)[4]

4. Well, why come up with an argument challenging who I am as a person, rather than an argument challenging my idea. Thats the only reason I'm "crying persecution," or rather, being annoyed by denotation as some raving lunatic, when all I did was offer another perspective.

So, just stop blindly calling me a lunatic and actually try to argue. If not, I'm not even going to respond to you.

First, it's not an argument, it's an observation offered as an explanation to why nobody is taking you seriously. You can choose to be annoyed by it or you can accept it as a valid criticism for how to reshape your presentation.

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.

[rickymooston]

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?}

[Alkan]

I might take a bit of time off to rework my explaination.

I don't think anyone could show me anything to point towards this idea being wrong. If that is the case, and I am able to translate it, then there is a good possibility that this could in fact become something very large...

[L6]

Just bear in mind that if it isn't falsifiable, then it isn't much of anything.

[Alkan]

Just bear in mind that if it isn't falsifiable, then it isn't much of anything.

If something isn't falsifiable that doesn't mean it isn't much of anything. For instance, the law of conservation of energy isn't falsifiable, and we don't throw it out.

I'm talking about a conclusion that would make it true, rather than just an assumption based on the lack of ability to disprove it...

I think I might have something that gets the point across, and I'm confident enough in it that I won't even post it here... Its simple and sums everything up in a way that the average mind can concieve...

[Goodkat]

I also understand the true boundaries of atheism- if you understood it in a real conceptual sense, you'd want to kill yourself out of curiousity- not to see if there's anything, or because you see anything, but because, you want to see if you'd feel anything! It was a funny time, but I also just felt numb- like I didn't exist at all.
[/b]

I have allways felt this way, even while I was a super-fundie christian. To be completely honest, if I formed my beliefs based on my feelings, I wouldn't believe that the world, or even myself, actually existed. You seem to think that through this surreal experience you had that you have attained a higher level of thinking than the rest of us. Just because understanding of the true bounds of atheism lead you to this experience, doesn't mean that it would lead everyone there, and just because this experience changed the way you thought, doesn't mean that it's a better way to think. Maybe your experience was an emotional break down which damaged your reasoning abilities. Some of your posts would seem to support this.

[Goodkat]

For your hypothesis to be true, you must be able to prove that what you call consciousness cannot arise from physical elements, you have yet to do that. I can relate to someone who has a problem with the idea of consciousness, but it is totally possible that it is, like you said, just an illusion. If consciousness is the result of something other than the physical components of the brain, then why does it cease when those components are removed?

[rickymooston]

If something isn't falsifiable that doesn't mean it isn't much of anything. For instance, the law of conservation of energy isn't falsifiable, and we don't throw it out.

If you could build a perpetual motion machine that would falsify conservation of energy.

Anyway, eagerly curious to see what you hypothesis will be. Cheers.

[ksm]

I think I might have something that gets the point across, and I'm confident enough in it that I won't even post it here... Its simple and sums everything up in a way that the average mind can concieve...

Sounds like you're not confident at all.

If it is so good then post it.

[L6]

Just bear in mind that if it isn't falsifiable, then it isn't much of anything.

If something isn't falsifiable that doesn't mean it isn't much of anything. For instance, the law of conservation of energy isn't falsifiable, and we don't throw it out.

Like ricky said, just build a perpetual motion machine.

Everything meaningful is either a falsifiable statement or a self-evident axiom. Your something is an axiom, then? Can it be used to generate falsifiable statements?

I'm talking about a conclusion that would make it true, rather than just an assumption based on the lack of ability to disprove it...

So there is something that can verify its truth, but there is nothing that can test whether it's false? How bizarre.

I think I might have something that gets the point across, and I'm confident enough in it that I won't even post it here... Its simple and sums everything up in a way that the average mind can concieve...

http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2006/09/doggerel-39-i-can-see-it-why-cant-you.html
http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2008/03/doggerel-147-i-cant-prove-it-or.html

[Freak]

I think I might have something that gets the point across, and I'm confident enough in it that I won't even post it here... Its simple and sums everything up in a way that the average mind can concieve...

Ok... wait, you're so confident that you won't post it?
I'm done with this conversation. What a joke. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in the beginning, and you just squandered it.

[L6]

Agreed.

[Alkan]

I think I might have something that gets the point across, and I'm confident enough in it that I won't even post it here... Its simple and sums everything up in a way that the average mind can concieve...

Ok... wait, you're so confident that you won't post it?
I'm done with this conversation. What a joke. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in the beginning, and you just squandered it.

lol... I'm not posting it for copyright reasons, lol.

I am also going to work on it for about a year, and then publish it, maybe not as science, because it is and isn't at the same time...

And Goodkat, who thinks that I am just saying that I attained a higher level of thinking from experiencing that- I did. But it wasn't magical. I gained an intuitive sense of how the universe works based on what I know in physics, I couldn't help myself(physics is also just a passion of mine). I also decided that I can no longer make assumptions because it lead me to that phase of my life where I felt like I was in a weird dream. Because I can no longer make assumptions, I have to logically or physically understand something in and out fully before believing it.

And I've been thinking like that for about a year now. However, my scientific mind has been working for as long as I can remember. Same with my philosophical path- I guess it started when I was four, noticing how kids would sarcastically remark "that's going to take forever," I realized that forever wasn't a finite time frame and said "Forever isn't a long time, or a short time, its just always." Thats also because I have a mild asperger's tendancy(I don't actually have it), and tend to take statements all too literally, even when I know that they aren't...

You, on the other hand just have started your philosophical path, and are probably, as almost everyone does, basing your ideas on feelings and assumptions. Don't think you aren't, everyone does, and it is only by the sheerest accident that I came to understand when ideas are based off of assumptions and feelings.

[rickymooston]

lol... I'm not posting it for copyright reasons, lol.

Lol.

[madame_zora]

I had magical powers too when I was 16, you'll grow out of it.

[rickymooston]

I had magical powers too when I was 16, you'll grow out of it.

Let me guess, you had rather long hair and all the boys in your high school were nuts about you at the time?

[Goodkat]

And Goodkat, who thinks that I am just saying that I attained a higher level of thinking from experiencing that- I did. But it wasn't magical. I gained an intuitive sense of how the universe works based on what I know in physics, I couldn't help myself(physics is also just a passion of mine). I also decided that I can no longer make assumptions because it lead me to that phase of my life where I felt like I was in a weird dream. Because I can no longer make assumptions, I have to logically or physically understand something in and out fully before believing it.

And I've been thinking like that for about a year now. However, my scientific mind has been working for as long as I can remember. Same with my philosophical path- I guess it started when I was four, noticing how kids would sarcastically remark "that's going to take forever," I realized that forever wasn't a finite time frame and said "Forever isn't a long time, or a short time, its just always." Thats also because I have a mild asperger's tendancy(I don't actually have it), and tend to take statements all too literally, even when I know that they aren't...

You, on the other hand just have started your philosophical path, and are probably, as almost everyone does, basing your ideas on feelings and assumptions. Don't think you aren't, everyone does, and it is only by the sheerest accident that I came to understand when ideas are based off of assumptions and feelings.

For someone who can't make assumptions, you sure do make a lot of assumptions. That dream-like state is what I live in every day, it's called disassociation, and just because a line of thought leads you to it, doesn't mean that the line of thought is flawed. The disassociation you experienced was an emotional phenomena, thus, just like many religious converts, you changed your way of thinking based on feelings. Some assumptions must be made, especially during everyday life and decision making. If you thoroughly contemplated everything before you accepted it, you would waste your life away just thinking all the time. Honestly, nothing you have posted has even suggested that you have attained a higher level of thinking, only that you have convinced yourself of it, and acquired an undeserved sense of pride along with that idea. When you post something I haven't already considered and discarded, I will be impressed.

[rickymooston]

For someone who can't make assumptions, you sure do make a lot of assumptions. That dream-like state is what I live in every day, it's called disassociation, and just because a line of thought leads you to it, doesn't mean that the line of thought is flawed. The disassociation you experienced was an emotional phenomena, thus, just like many religious converts, you changed your way of thinking based on feelings. Some assumptions must be made, especially during everyday life and decision making. If you thoroughly contemplated everything before you accepted it, you would waste your life away just thinking all the time. Honestly, nothing you have posted has even suggested that you have attained a higher level of thinking, only that you have convinced yourself of it, and acquired an undeserved sense of pride along with that idea. When you post something I haven't already considered and discarded, I will be impressed.

In 1637 Pierre de Fermat wrote, in his copy of Claude-Gaspar Bachet's translation of the famous Arithmetica of Diophantus, "I have a truly marvellous proof of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain." (Original Latin: "Cuius rei demonstrationem mirabilem sane detexi. Hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet.")

I believe REAL proof was descovered by mathematicians in the late 1980s or 1990s.

. (Agreeing that proof is always in the pudding.)

[Alkan]

For someone who can't make assumptions, you sure do make a lot of assumptions. That dream-like state is what I live in every day, it's called disassociation, and just because a line of thought leads you to it, doesn't mean that the line of thought is flawed. The disassociation you experienced was an emotional phenomena, thus, just like many religious converts, you changed your way of thinking based on feelings. Some assumptions must be made, especially during everyday life and decision making. If you thoroughly contemplated everything before you accepted it, you would waste your life away just thinking all the time. Honestly, nothing you have posted has even suggested that you have attained a higher level of thinking, only that you have convinced yourself of it, and acquired an undeserved sense of pride along with that idea. When you post something I haven't already considered and discarded, I will be impressed.

Why should I just assume certain things about the world? Where's the fun in that! lol.

Of COURSE you have to assume things about everyday life, but I do probably over-apply logic there to. My thinking system works great for me, because it gives me what few philosophical people have- foundation. My thinking time is devoted mostly to understanding the fundamentals of things- morals, physics, etc. When you get down to the absolute basics of what something really is, you can go farther than so many people.

[rickymooston]

Of COURSE you have to assume things about everyday life, but I do probably over-apply logic there to. My thinking system works great for me, because it gives me what few philosophical people have- foundation. My thinking time is devoted mostly to understanding the fundamentals of things- morals, physics, etc. When you get down to the absolute basics of what something really is, you can go farther than so many people.

if you say so. no offense but ...  have this really great idea i cant tell you about too.

[Goodkat]

Of COURSE you have to assume things about everyday life, but I do probably over-apply logic there to. My thinking system works great for me, because it gives me what few philosophical people have- foundation. My thinking time is devoted mostly to understanding the fundamentals of things- morals, physics, etc. When you get down to the absolute basics of what something really is, you can go farther than so many people.

if you say so. no offense but ...  have this really great idea i cant tell you about too.

My sentiments exactly.

[L6]

I would hardly classify physics and morality as "fundamentals".

Edit: Furthermore, it doesn't matter whether you're the first person to say something; you just need to say it better.

[myst32]

From Consciousness Explained by Daniel C. Dennett.

Speaking on the mind brain intaction (dualism)

"Since we don't have the faintest idea what properties mind stuff has, we can't even guess how it might be affected by physical processes emanating from the brain.  These, ex hypothesi, are not physical; they are not light waves or sound waves or cosmic rays or streams of subatomic particles. No physical energy or mass is associated with them. How, then, do they get to make a difference to what happends to the brain cells they must affect, if the mind is to have any influence over the body?  A fundamental principle of physics is that any change in trajectory of any physical entity is an acceleration requiring the expenditure of energy, and were is this energy to come from? It is this principle of the conservation of energy that accounts for the physical impossibility of "perpetual motion machines," and the same principle is apparently violated by dualism."

When you get down to the absolute basics of what something really is, you can go farther than so many people.

How many grams of mushrooms have you taken?