Is Consciousness an Emergent Property

[Edgarcito]

Time for a periodic conversation......what do we do with consciousness.

 

Thx.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I'm afraid you're going to have to provide a little more direction and specificity before I can understand the question. 

[Edgarcito]

Have just been contemplating relativity......is consciousness relative to something objective.... or is consciousness outside of objectivity, or both.  Then the question becomes how we treat it given some adopted standard, objective or not.

[walterpthefirst]

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Have just been contemplating relativity......is consciousness relative to something objective.... or is consciousness outside of objectivity, or both.  Then the question becomes how we treat it given some adopted standard, objective or not.

 

 

Fyi Ed, Einstein originally used the word relativity to refer to the absence of an absolute frame of reference for all observers of the universe.

 

This meant that the frame of reference for any observer was relative to that of any other observer and not relative to an absolute frame of reference.

 

In a nutshell, nothing is absolute and everything is relative.

 

In the usually accepted sense of the word 'observer', all observers possess a consciousness with which to perceive and understand what they were seeing.

 

There is a more technical understanding of the word 'observer', but that need not bother us for the moment.

 

This link might be of help.

 

http://mremrich.com/physics12/physics12/Attachments/a_Student_Text/P12SB562.pdf

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Define objectivity, please, @Edgarcito.

[sdelsolray]

The evidence plausibly supports the hypothesis that consciousness, to the extent it exists in carbon based life on Earth, is an emergent property (or set of emergent properties) of certain combinations of matter, energy and related biochemical processes and structures.

Of course, discussion will depend on an agreed definition of the term "consciousness", as well as an understanding of "emergence" and "emergent properties".

Daniel Dennett spends considerable time in a few of his books about this, in his typical verbose and sometimes difficult to understand writing style.

[Joshpantera]

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Have just been contemplating relativity......is consciousness relative to something objective.... or is consciousness outside of objectivity, or both.  Then the question becomes how we treat it given some adopted standard, objective or not.

 

When it's taken to be outside of objective reality, then this happens: 

 

 

You can cross reference this with Daniel Dennett by going to the 32:43-minute mark. 

[midniterider]

8 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

what do we do with consciousness.

 

 

 

I thought Christians believed in some sort of immortal, immaterial soul. Wouldn't a Christian think that consciousness and soul was the same thing? 

 

My philosophy is aligned with consciousness as being primary.... all else is emergent from that. 

[alreadyGone]

15 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

.....what do we do with consciousness.

 

 

Contemplate our belly-button?

[midniterider]

A Christian might pray to Jesus for an answer to consciousness. Or check with his pastor. 

[Edgarcito]

It's not just belly button contemplation but saving the lent for a sweater.  Faith AND works.

[alreadyGone]

25 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

It's not just belly button contemplation but saving the lent for a sweater.  Faith AND works.

 

With the Easter observance so near at hand, this is especially hilarious.

Don't know if that was intended or only a minor slip, but...   Lent vs lint.

 

Good show! You made me smile.

Have a great day.

[Edgarcito]

Well, there are scriptures that suggest the body and soul are independent and yet we can hit our heads or submit to anesthesia and seemingly lose consciousness, suggesting it's an objective function.  Which I was pondering...our views, our truths are relative to what.... other than standards we adopt or test.  That then lead us ultimately to faith, given our existence has limitations at this point.  If anyone has a way out of this dilemma...

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

 

With the Easter observance so near at hand, this is especially hilarious.

Don't know if that was intended or only a minor slip, but...   Lent vs lint.

 

Good show! You made me smile.

Have a great day.

Lol, sorry, I'm an ill-educated redneck mostly.

 

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Well, there are scriptures that suggest the body and soul are independent and yet we can hit our heads or submit to anesthesia and seemingly lose consciousness, suggesting it's an objective function.  Which I was pondering...our views, our truths are relative to what.... other than standards we adopt or test.  That then lead us ultimately to faith, given our existence has limitations at this point.  If anyone has a way out of this dilemma...

 

It's only a dilemma if your first premise is true.

 

If you know that it's true by faith, then you have faith leading you ultimately to faith.

 

Which is a circular argument.

 

And the dilemma that you've made for yourself cannot be true.

 

Unless all circular arguments are true.

 

Are they?

 

 

[midniterider]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Well, there are scriptures that suggest the body and soul are independent and yet we can hit our heads or submit to anesthesia and seemingly lose consciousness, suggesting it's an objective function.  Which I was pondering...our views, our truths are relative to what.... other than standards we adopt or test.  That then lead us ultimately to faith, given our existence has limitations at this point.  If anyone has a way out of this dilemma...

 

That's interesting to think about. What happens to consciousness under anesthesia? Sleep? Nisargadatta mentions that there must be some base consciousness operating during sleep otherwise someone would not be able to wake you up by speaking to you. But he's not a neurologist, so...

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

It's only a dilemma if your first premise is true.

 

If you know that it's true by faith, then you have faith leading you ultimately to faith.

 

Which is a circular argument.

 

And the dilemma that you've made for yourself cannot be true.

 

Unless all circular arguments are true.

 

Are they?

 

 

I don't see that it matters.  Faith often leads scientific discovery.  I don't know that everyone in science depends on previous data to move the knowledge base further.  Perhaps that's an invalid definition, but it's certainly real.  I view science still being subject to limitations, a growth from inward to outward, but faith can certainly be mixed in the matrix.

 

In science, we have faith leading us to some level of knowledge that only yields our ultimate subjectivity, that we will never have completeness.... more faith.  

 

In other words, we have no cause/Cause, nothing relative except our sphere of experience and capability.

[Edgarcito]

27 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

That's interesting to think about. What happens to consciousness under anesthesia? Sleep? Nisargadatta mentions that there must be some base consciousness operating during sleep otherwise someone would not be able to wake you up by speaking to you. But he's not a neurologist, so...

Well, we've had people claim to float above the surgery.  And then there are people like me that would swear I went under and then woke back up immediately, but in truth 3 hours had passed.  I'm unclear of how anesthesia works.  I shall broaden my base, lol.

[walterpthefirst]

56 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I don't see that it matters.  Faith often leads scientific discovery. 

 

Nope.  Science is totally agnostic and is silent on all matters of faith, theology, religion and the supernatural.

 

If you think about it for a minute, it HAS TO BE.

 

Science is an international discipline open to people of all races, creeds, ethnicities and beliefs.  But everyone without exception is required to leave their personal beliefs at the door and adopt a strictly agnostic way of thinking when they come to do any science.

 

But, if science did use religious faith, which religious faith would all scientists have to sign up to do science?  Islam?  Sikhism?  Mormonism?  Zen Buddhism?  Rastafarianism?  There's just no way to compel a devout Sikh scientist that they must adopt the Christian faith to do their science.  It's unworkable and biased.

 

So, science doesn't and cannot use faith in any kind of religious way, Ed.  I'm sorry, but you are 100% wrong about this.

 

56 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

 

 

I don't know that everyone in science depends on previous data to move the knowledge base further. 

 

 

Then you don't seem to know much about the scientific method.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method  Please look at the second step of the scientific method in the diagram at top right.

 

The Research step involves looking at previous data to move the knowledge base further.

 

56 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

 

 

Perhaps that's an invalid definition, but it's certainly real. 

 

 

Yes, it's invalid and No, it's not real.

 

56 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

 

I view science still being subject to limitations, a growth from inward to outward, but faith can certainly be mixed in the matrix.

 

No, faith cannot be used in science.  For the reason given above.  Science has to be open to people of all faiths and no one particular faith (like Christianity) can dominate it.  The only reasonable and fair solution is to exclude religious faith completely from science.

 

56 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

 

In science, we have faith leading us to some level of knowledge that only yields our ultimate subjectivity, that we will never have completeness.... more faith.  

 

No, we don't have faith leading us anywhere in science.  Science doesn't employ religious faith.

 

56 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

 

In other words, we have no cause/Cause, nothing relative except our sphere of experience and capability.

 

Word salad.

[walterpthefirst]

58 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Well, we've had people claim to float above the surgery.  And then there are people like me that would swear I went under and then woke back up immediately, but in truth 3 hours had passed.  I'm unclear of how anesthesia works.  I shall broaden my base, lol.

 

Do you treat all claims as valid, Ed?

 

Like the ones described here?  https://www.hollowearthresearch.org/

 

Or here?  https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/

 

This, maybe?  https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2018/02/obey-and-bow-down-to-your-alien-reptilian-overlords/

 

?

 

[Edgarcito]

5 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Nope.  Science is totally agnostic and is silent on all matters of faith, theology, religion and the supernatural.

 

If you think about it for a minute, it HAS TO BE.

 

Science is an international discipline open to people of all races, creeds, ethnicities and beliefs.  But everyone without exception is required to leave their personal beliefs at the door and adopt a strictly agnostic way of thinking when they come to do any science.

 

But, if science did use religious faith, which religious faith would all scientists have to sign up to do science?  Islam?  Sikhism?  Mormonism?  Zen Buddhism?  Rastafarianism?  There's just no way to compel a devout Sikh scientist that they must adopt the Christian faith to do their science.  It's unworkable and biased.

 

So, science doesn't and cannot use faith in any kind of religious way, Ed.  I'm sorry, but you are 100% wrong about this.

 

 

Then you don't seem to know much about the scientific method.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method  Please look at the second step of the scientific method in the diagram at top right.

 

The Research step involves looking at previous data to move the knowledge base further.

 

 

Yes, it's invalid and No, it's not real.

 

 

No, faith cannot be used in science.  For the reason given above.  Science has to be open to people of all faiths and no one particular faith (like Christianity) can dominate it.  The only reasonable and fair solution is to exclude religious faith completely from science.

 

 

No, we don't have faith leading us anywhere in science.  Science doesn't employ religious faith.

 

 

Word salad.

I apologize, I am not using faith in religious terms, although religious faith may certainly be involved in inquiry.

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Do you treat all claims as valid, Ed?

 

Like the ones described here?  https://www.hollowearthresearch.org/

 

Or here?  https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/

 

This, maybe?  https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2018/02/obey-and-bow-down-to-your-alien-reptilian-overlords/

 

?

 

No, I don't treat all claims as valid.

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

I apologize, I am not using faith in religious terms, although religious faith may certainly be involved in inquiry.

 

No need to apologize, Ed.

 

Religious faith may be involved in religious inquiry about reality.

 

But religious faith cannot be involved in the scientific inquiry about reality.

 

The two do not overlap.

[walterpthefirst]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

No, I don't treat all claims as valid.

 

Then why would you treat the claim that people float above the operating table where surgeons are working on them as valid?

 

Surely your starting position for inquiry is scepticism, not acceptance?

[Edgarcito]

 

In other words, we have no cause/Cause, nothing relative except our sphere of experience and capability.

 

Let me try again here.  We've discussed this before.  Our existence would seemingly be relative to a cause.  It's out of our grasp at this moment to define cause, or Cause, or any other reasoning.  At some point, due to our subjectivity, we have to settle for faith.... not specifically religious faith, but some do.