Jump to content

Is Consciousness an Emergent Property


Edgarcito
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I believe certainly we can have a conversation.  I have a novel idea.  Why don't I submit an abstract thought outside of science and you translate it inside science.  For example, the limits of consciousness is my abstract thought outside science.  I think most people here would agree to believe it's an objective function, consciousness.  So this is where you would jump in and say, ok, Ed, let's start with sub atomic particles and add particles and ask ourselves at what point we will concede a shared definition of consciousness.....given I'm not so much in the objective consciousness court.  

 

How does that sound?  I'll concede you are more knowledgeable.  Doesn't have to be fancy or peer worthy, just scientific speculation would suffice for me.

 

Your novel idea is a waste of time, Ed.

 

Science's remit is to describe and explain physical reality.  Sure, abstract concepts like mathematics are used to do this, but these concepts on their own tell us nothing about physical reality.

 

For example, what is the 'twoness' of the number 2?  Because we are asking a question about the abstract concept of the number 2, our answer will be (and must be) another abstract concept.

 

The purely abstract concepts of mathematics only gain physical meaning when you use them to talk about actual, physical things, like jellybeans, elephants or galaxies.

 

So, when we say that there are 782 jellybeans in a big jar, that means something real.  Or, if we say that there are only 500,000 elephants left in the world, that tells us something real.  If we say that there are 2 Magellanic Clouds (dwarf galaxies) orbiting the Milky Way, then that means something real.

 

But if we say that there 782, there are 500,000 and there are 2, that tells us NOTHING about reality.  Abstract concepts like numbers on their own cannot be translated into anything meaningful about reality.  But if we connect those numbers to real things like jellybeans, elephants and galaxies, then we can say meaningful things about reality.

 

So, returning to science's remit...

 

Science describes and explains the physical reality we live in by using abstract concepts like numbers as a tool.  Unless a tool has something to work on, you cannot use it.  A chisel on its own doesn't cut any wood.  It needs the wood to become useful and to do work.

 

The limits of consciousness is your abstract thought.  But, as I've explained, abstract things on their own have no real meaning.  They are only tools and they can only do work if you give them something to work on.

 

Now then Ed, how are you going to get your abstract thought to tell us something about reality?

 

 

Walter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I believe certainly we can have a conversation.  I have a novel idea.  Why don't I submit an abstract thought outside of science and you translate it inside science.  For example, the limits of consciousness is my abstract thought outside science.  I think most people here would agree to believe it's an objective function, consciousness.  So this is where you would jump in and say, ok, Ed, let's start with sub atomic particles and add particles and ask ourselves at what point we will concede a shared definition of consciousness.....given I'm not so much in the objective consciousness court.  

 

How does that sound?  I'll concede you are more knowledgeable.  Doesn't have to be fancy or peer worthy, just scientific speculation would suffice for me.

 

Humans are just another animal according to science, the most intelligent of the great Apes.

A major quality of animal consciousness is its self-awareness.  In an awakened state, Identifying external objects and other animals similar or different from themselves, and parts of one’s own anatomy as being part of the self.  Since humans have the highest extent of abstract reasoning, it can be said that our level of consciousness can reach a higher level of understanding compared to other animals, concerning an understanding of ourselves and our environment. But consciousness is no more than a processing of our senses, both active with our memories of past ideas and encounters,  according to many or most scientists in this field. Also many, or most scientists in this field believe there is no spiritual side to consciousness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I believe certainly we can have a conversation.  I have a novel idea.  Why don't I submit an abstract thought outside of science and you translate it inside science.  For example, the limits of consciousness is my abstract thought outside science.  I think most people here would agree to believe it's an objective function, consciousness.  So this is where you would jump in and say, ok, Ed, let's start with sub atomic particles and add particles and ask ourselves at what point we will concede a shared definition of consciousness.....given I'm not so much in the objective consciousness court.  

 

How does that sound?  I'll concede you are more knowledgeable.  Doesn't have to be fancy or peer worthy, just scientific speculation would suffice for me.

 

I'm skeptical about the existence of matter. :) 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought of a question.  Where does instinct come from?  How do those little sea turtles who have have never had a momma to teach them how to walk and go to the water, know to run like heck to the water?  Isn't that some kind of "consciousness" (spirit)? that was passed from one life to another?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
9 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

I'm skeptical about the existence of matter. :) 

I'm skeptical that existence matters.  ☸

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Weezer said:

I thought of a question.  Where does instinct come from?  How do those little sea turtles who have have never had a momma to teach them how to walk and go to the water, know to run like heck to the water?  Isn't that some kind of "consciousness" (spirit)? that was passed from one life to another?  

It's not in the remit of science Weezer....fuck off.

 

Lol, sorry, I am picking on Walter.  Good question sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

According to T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia)...

 

...nothing matters.

 

That's written over the front door to his house, which is now a museum.

Fredrick Mercury, famous 20th century poet and philosopher, expanded on this by stating, "Nothing really matters." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Your novel idea is a waste of time, Ed.

 

Science's remit is to describe and explain physical reality.  Sure, abstract concepts like mathematics are used to do this, but these concepts on their own tell us nothing about physical reality.

 

For example, what is the 'twoness' of the number 2?  Because we are asking a question about the abstract concept of the number 2, our answer will be (and must be) another abstract concept.

 

The purely abstract concepts of mathematics only gain physical meaning when you use them to talk about actual, physical things, like jellybeans, elephants or galaxies.

 

So, when we say that there are 782 jellybeans in a big jar, that means something real.  Or, if we say that there are only 500,000 elephants left in the world, that tells us something real.  If we say that there are 2 Magellanic Clouds (dwarf galaxies) orbiting the Milky Way, then that means something real.

 

But if we say that there 782, there are 500,000 and there are 2, that tells us NOTHING about reality.  Abstract concepts like numbers on their own cannot be translated into anything meaningful about reality.  But if we connect those numbers to real things like jellybeans, elephants and galaxies, then we can say meaningful things about reality.

 

So, returning to science's remit...

 

Science describes and explains the physical reality we live in by using abstract concepts like numbers as a tool.  Unless a tool has something to work on, you cannot use it.  A chisel on its own doesn't cut any wood.  It needs the wood to become useful and to do work.

 

The limits of consciousness is your abstract thought.  But, as I've explained, abstract things on their own have no real meaning.  They are only tools and they can only do work if you give them something to work on.

 

Now then Ed, how are you going to get your abstract thought to tell us something about reality?

 

 

Walter.

I think most would agree that consciousness is real given we can turn it on and off with anesthesia.  Is that enough to continue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To have any kind of sensible discussion we'll first have to agree on definitions.  Talking about states of consciousness like states of water is a colloquialism.

 

Water is definitionally the liquid form of H20.  Any other states of H20 are not water.

 

Ice is not water.  Unless you're also willing to speak in terms of "look at that depression full of melted ice/condensed steam."

Steam is not water.  "Hoo boy I like a glass of refreshing frozen steam".

 

Water is simply the common expression.

 

All three are H20.  Can you try to define consciousness so we can at least grasp the boundaries?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Krowb said:

To have any kind of sensible discussion we'll first have to agree on definitions.  Talking about states of consciousness like states of water is a colloquialism.

 

Water is definitionally the liquid form of H20.  Any other states of H20 are not water.

 

Ice is not water.  Unless you're also willing to speak in terms of "look at that depression full of melted ice/condensed steam."

Steam is not water.  "Hoo boy I like a glass of refreshing frozen steam".

 

Water is simply the common expression.

 

All three are H20.  Can you try to define consciousness so we can at least grasp the boundaries?

yes, but can they not exist as one at the same time.  My point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

yes, but can they not exist as one at the same time.  My point.

No.

 

https://eos.org/research-spotlights/water-water-everywhere-but-how-much-h2o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid you've lost me.  Water/steam/ice are configurations of H20.

 

What are you proposing is the underlying, defining thing of the various "states of consciousness"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By all means.  You are the proponent of this discourse, please propose, and we'll see if it holds up.  Though you've set yourself to a task that not even the philosophers can agree to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Krowb said:

By all means.  You are the proponent of this discourse, please propose, and we'll see if it holds up.  Though you've set yourself to a task that not even the philosophers can agree to.

I'm just setting up Walter to fail.  Practicing my lawyer skills hoping for kudos from the elite attorney present.  Walter's already failed.....he just won't admit it.  Have to do a little work, but will answer asap.  Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
12 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

"I was called up in the Spirit".  Maybe the conditions have to be right to allow multi-phases of consciousness. You can do this brother.....lol.

 

Yes.  You'd like to say that the triple-point of water suggests the trinity and can further be used to illustrate different phases of consciousness (ever how you're trying to define it).  However, as the study shows, at the molecular level, ice is not the same as water is not the same as gas.  Conditions or no, pure H2O only exists as a gas.  Your analogy does nothing to advance your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Yes.  You'd like to say that the triple-point of water suggests the trinity and can further be used to illustrate different phases of consciousness (ever how you're trying to define it).  However, as the study shows, at the molecular level, ice is not the same as water is not the same as gas.  Conditions or no, pure H2O only exists as a gas.  Your analogy does nothing to advance your point.

What study, what instruments, what data do they use to make a distinction at those conditions.  The implication of your statement would be that we can see better than we can see.  If it's there, I'll be happy to accept it.  Thx.  Which reminds me of another verse about seeing in part....js.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I call horse shit anyhow Prof.  There has to be at some point in time where there is the exact point where water is between 3 phase changes.  I seriously doubt we have the ability to measure that.  Also, there are words like conscious, unconscious and sub conscious in our everyday modern language.  

 

COME on Man.   lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I've lost the plot again.  What are you proposing is meant by the term "consciousness".  Can we reach agreement as to this term to have a fruitful discussion?

 

Right now this is more similar to TRP having a conversation about "energy" with a reiki practitioner than an attempt to find common ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Krowb said:

I'm afraid I've lost the plot again.  What are you proposing is meant by the term "consciousness".  Can we reach agreement as to this term to have a fruitful discussion?

 

Right now this is more similar to TRP having a conversation about "energy" with a reiki practitioner than an attempt to find common ground.

No sir, I think agreeing on a definition is prohibitive to the actual definition.  I would prefer to let the discussion go for awhile if possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you see what Krowb first asked you, an hour ago, Ed?

 

He asked that you agree on definitions.

 

But, as we've already established in this thread, you want to use words (and therefore definitions) in your own way.

 

So, are you going to follow Krowb's suggestion and agree on how words are used?

 

Or are you going to go your own way?

 

 

Ah, that answers my question.

 

You've just posted, answering Krowb's struggle to understand what you meant.

 

Because you haven't yet agreed to use words and definitions according to their rules.

 

 

Going your own way again, Ed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Did you see what Krowb first asked you, an hour ago, Ed?

 

He asked that you agree on definitions.

 

But, as we've already established in this thread, you want to use words (and therefore definitions) in your own way.

 

So, are you going to follow Krowb's suggestion and agree on how words are used?

 

Or are you going to go your own way?

 

 

Ah, that answers my question.

 

You've just posted, answering Krowb's struggle to understand what you meant.

 

Because you haven't yet agreed to use words and definitions according to their rules.

 

 

Going your own way again, Ed?

As I said, the "definition" is prohibitive.  The question that begs attention in my mind is "water" only "water" in phases and is it still the definition of "water" between phases.  Maybe it's the same for conscousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.