Consciousness Always Exists

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, nonetheless said:

We are atoms, like everything else, we are conscious (or made of), like everything else.

I personally have no use for your diluted version of consciousness. It is so broad as to make it impractical. Similarly, I don't want to read an article about how shoe laces are made that starts with the assembly of Pangaea.

[studiot]

8 hours ago, zapatos said:

I personally have no use for your diluted version of consciousness. It is so broad as to make it impractical. Similarly, I don't want to read an article about how shoe laces are made that starts with the assembly of Pangaea.

Gosh, how did you manage to understand any of that non scientific woo we seem to have wandered into ? +1

I am completely lost.

Help!

[Genady]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Gosh, how did you manage to understand any of that non scientific woo we seem to have wandered into ? +1

I am completely lost.

Help!

They are Deepak Chopra's disciple. E.g., 

Quote

• “We live as ripples of energy in the vast ocean of energy.”

 

[nonetheless]

Recently had a casual pleasure of watching a debate on utube, between three eminent scientists, of string/multiverse/quantum discipline, including a nobel laureate.  A debate of exploring respective theories.  Not particularly pretty.  Lots of disagreements. Occasional "that doesn't make a sense", or "that's just wrong"

Each theory seems consistent and convincing in its privacy, yet cross checked against premises of theories outside, questions are raised.  This crosstalk error seems to be related to the weight of its eventual public acceptance

Even then it would succumb to the biology of ideas over time, losing its assertive confidence, replaced with something better, more sensible, more up to date, whether science, religion, philosophy, music, politics, empires, galaxy, or iphone

thesis antithesis synthesis paresis paralysis - born rejected adopted failed died, repeat

Open free science discussions are in same meaningful context

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by nonetheless

[nonetheless]

T.S. Eliot said it best

We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.

[zapatos]

5 hours ago, nonetheless said:

This crosstalk error seems to be related to the weight of its eventual public acceptance

Can you expand on this please? What is "crosstalk error"? What is "weight of its eventual public acceptance"?

On what are you basing your conclusion that the 'error' seems to be related to the 'weight'?

[dimreepr]

29 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Can you expand on this please? What is "crosstalk error"? What is "weight of its eventual public acceptance"?

On what are you basing your conclusion that the 'error' seems to be related to the 'weight'?

As far as I can tell, he doesn't know what he's (assuming) talking about, because it's based on unqualified debaters; perhaps he should listen to this.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p00gpxhb 

[TheVat]

The universe is essentially a large kidney bean and consciousness is the gas that arises from a god digesting the bean.

Or as TS Eliot wrote, the river's tent is broken.

 

 

[nonetheless]

On 1/19/2023 at 8:26 AM, TheVat said:

The universe is essentially a large kidney bean and consciousness is the gas that arises from a god digesting the bean.

This sounds much better, increasing entropy, gas expansion, second law of thermodynamics

On 1/19/2023 at 6:28 AM, dimreepr said:

As far as I can tell, he doesn't know what he's (assuming) talking about, because it's based on unqualified debaters; perhaps he should listen to this.

Crosstalk has been confirmed

Carl Jung, of universal consciousness, would have something to say

When an inner situation is not made conscious, it happens outside as fate

Love the humility of R. Feynman

It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man. 

[dimreepr]

5 hours ago, nonetheless said:

Crosstalk has been confirmed

What is crosstalk and how does it relate to consciousness?

6 hours ago, nonetheless said:

When an inner situation is not made conscious, it happens outside as fate

That makes no sense, in the context of this topic.

If you listen to the link I provided, it talks about 'blind sight', in which a certain type of blind person can accurately (99%) point to a spot of light and believe they are just guessing; IOW they can see and point to the spot of light without a conscious awareness.

 

[nonetheless]

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That makes no sense, in the context of this topic.

Someone's dogma consciousness, not internally evolving will be overcome with eventual external acceptance in some shape and form at one's  lost opportunity expense, call it fate.  It's also possible this external consciousness does not actuate at all.  Afterall we are talking about a subject matter that is not defined adequately in the first place to warrant any such narrow HW default view from the get go

Every private view of anything is valid, and indisputable within ones own 3lb atomic mass.  It's not easy lazy in the public forum of ideas and discussion, particularly a "science" forum.  Any relevant idea's sensibility and underlying logic/rational are weighed, measured, analyzed.  Crosstalk errors of private/public communication seems inevitable, whether individually or small group of a particular scientific discipline.  Varying understanding/interpretation of scientific theories  (e.g., QM) are highly visible

Could be wrong, but I don't believe this is a dogmatic echo chamber where incest of logos lives

A famous reported incident of Galileo comes to mind when trying to show the moons of Jupiter to a vatican high wig

No, no need to look, truth of it is in this book, just look here

 

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, nonetheless said:

A famous reported incident of Galileo comes to mind when trying to show the moons of Jupiter to a vatican high wig

No, no need to look, truth of it is in this book, just look here

To the contrary, people ask you to show, but you just keep talking and talking and talking.

[nonetheless]

3 minutes ago, Genady said:

To the contrary, people ask you to show, but you just keep talking and talking and talking.

Showing, no one can (can you, one way or other), we can only discuss, using limited science we have.  Anyone can make a case

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, nonetheless said:

Showing, no one can (can you, one way or other), we can only discuss, using limited science we have.  Anyone can make a case

Then, your reference to Galileo's incident is BS because as you said, he was

12 minutes ago, Genady said:

trying to show

(my emphasis)

[nonetheless]

Another bit of R Feynman wisdom to those pretending to have certainty answers

I would rather have question can't be answered than answer can't be questioned

[Genady]

Another bit of R. Fenyman wisdom to those pretending to be deep thinkers:

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.

[nonetheless]

Agreed for each own, anyone could be off target.  This seems to be about scientific discussion, exploration, sharing reasonable concepts, not about hard boiled eggo views, uninterested in chicken-or-egg-first question due presumption.   They just want to eat it.  Problem is eggs are hard to come by these days, something about viral flu

R.F. other thoughts

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems (consciousness is one, added) is just as dumb as the next guy

or

See that the imagination of nature is far, far greater than the imagination of man

or

We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on

 

[zapatos]

8 minutes ago, nonetheless said:

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems (consciousness is one, added) is just as dumb as the next guy

 

This is a science site so we are interested in discussing the scientific aspects of consciousness. If you don't believe consciousness is a natural phenomenon, and thus supernatural, you are in the wrong place.

[nonetheless]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

This is a science site so we are interested in discussing the scientific aspects of consciousness. If you don't believe consciousness is a natural phenomenon, and thus supernatural, you are in the wrong place.

Who says this is supernatural,  why the presumption ?  I thought Nietzche forcibly retired god, because he is created in image of man, and of course he can retire like the rest of us

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, nonetheless said:

Who says this is supernatural,  why the presumption ? 

Because you said...

18 minutes ago, nonetheless said:

...nonscientific problems (consciousness is one...

 

[nonetheless]

Non-scientific (for lack of adequate scientific definition already mentioned) is supernatural ?  Panpsychism, dualism, illusionism, even plato's cave ideas are all scientific schools of thought trying to clear some mystery worse than "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma" of Churchill in describing soviet political mindset

[dimreepr]

9 hours ago, nonetheless said:

Who says this is supernatural,  why the presumption ?  I thought Nietzche forcibly retired god, because he is created in image of man, and of course he can retire like the rest of us

Nietzche lamented that we killed god, you thought wrong; besides it was you that claimed an "external consciousness", which can only be supernatural, in every sense of the word.

9 hours ago, nonetheless said:

Non-scientific (for lack of adequate scientific definition already mentioned) is supernatural ?  Panpsychism, dualism, illusionism, even plato's cave ideas are all scientific schools of thought trying to clear some mystery worse than "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma" of Churchill in describing soviet political mindset

You really should try to learn a little bit, of the sources you profess, in order to prevent the inaccuracies of your thought's; illusionism, for instance, what do you think it means?

And why is non-scientific automatically supernatural? My dog is neither.

And more to the point, what does any of this have to do with consciousness 

[nonetheless]

14 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You really should try to learn a little bit, of the sources you profess, in order to prevent the inaccuracies of your thought's; illusionism, for instance, what do you think it means?

And why is non-scientific automatically supernatural? My dog is neither.

And more to the point, what does any of this have to do with consciousness 

I agree we all should.

Supernatural is your private concept, not mine.  No need to assume non-scientific, in the minds of dead-atom-scientists appararently, to be supernatural.  I only see nature

illusionism per wiki, as another viewpoint of consciousness

Illusionism is a metaphysical theory about free will first propounded by professor Saul Smilansky of the University of Haifa. Although there exists a theory of consciousness bearing the same name (illusionism), it is important to note that the two theories are concerned with different subjects.

And of Consciousness and its connection to determinism, and a challenge of differing scientific opinions to the assumption of universe being deterministic

https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/determinism-classical-argument-against-free-will-failure/

We can look at it another way head-on, as a direct challenge to the assumptions of what consciousness is.  How do you know anyone's viewpoint (including mine) posted here is from a human consciousness not advanced AI, in consideration of "indistinguishable from human answer."  How would you know this in the context of consciousness, human or machine ?

In terms of evolving definition of consciousness discussed, we are already beyond Turing test of yesterday, and beyond "Replicant Test" (Blade Runner) of future.   What would separate us with this cosmic special previleged endowment of consciousness distinguishable from mere machines ? 

As for ad hominem of "you should", it's for amateurs and gen-z

Love to hear your definition and notion of consciousness for public consumption

[zapatos]

42 minutes ago, nonetheless said:

As for ad hominem of "you should", it's for amateurs and gen-z

 

My irony meter just broke. 

[nonetheless]

12 minutes ago, zapatos said:

My irony meter just broke.

Hiding behind irony will not save you

Its time we hear your ideas of consciousness for public scrutiny