So do you if you want to explain consciousness cofty.
If you reject the existence of the soul then you are an Animist?
by Seraphim23 149 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
scotoma
Apog:
Plants move. = Tropism
The startle reflex is mediated by the nervous system. Rocks don't have nervous systems. You don't startle rocks. The whole purpose behind the startle reflex is to avoid coming in contact with something dangerous.
The many arrangements we each have with our personal parasites doesn't alter the identity of the organism as a whole. You can kill the yeast infection and the organism continues. If you extract the gold from the quartz you don't have the same rock anymore.
The problem with your summary of nervous system activity is that rocks simply don't have nervous systems. It doesn't explain anything.
That's the whole point. It's not a difference in degree but a difference in kind.
You might say that rocks have a relationship with everything in the universe, but those relationships don't "mean" anything to the rock. Rock A might be 3 cm from rock B. Who cares? Yes - WHO cares and a WHO is an organism in contrast to a rock that is merely a WHAT.
Meaning, also called value, requires a living organism.
-
Apognophos
I just see the startle reflex as a straightforward example of a physical event (say, a housefly flying at your face) which generates a reaction. This reaction is determined by the chemical processes that convey vision from your eyes to your brain and then from your brain to your body to move out of the way. It's as straightforward as one pole of a magnet pushing away the same pole of another magnet, just that's it's a chemically complex way of achieving the same thing.
Of course we also have higher thought processes where we act upon symbols, such as when we do something creative like painting or writing. This is a pretty amazing emergent quality of our brains which simpler brains do not have. However, I don't think it is a magical process. It's simply the conversion of external stimuli into an arrangement of information in our brain which we call a thought or experience. This is no different than a rock which responds to outside forces and stores information about them (after all, scientists are able to date rocks based upon things like the effect of the planet's magnetic inversions and the heat they've been subjected to).
I feel confident that if you could completely map someone's brain at a certain moment in time, and had a powerful enough computer to simulate it, and could also reproduce the stimuli that the person was experiencing and feed that into the sim-brain, you would be able to predict their every movement. There may be some quantum uncertainty that could present a problem in this, but basically I just don't see where in the brain would reside free will or anything that could be termed a consciousness.
-
Viviane
Yes, I did suggest that the usage of the word "consciousness" is unclear in the sense that I do not believe the definition is meaningful.
And as I have been saying, if Seraphim wants to use a different defintion that the common one in the dictionary or you do, make your case as to why and what the new definition should be.
Though few today would uphold those ideas, you seem to believe that consciousness is clearly definable just by sticking your finger on the word on the dictionary page and reading what it says and then saying, "QED, it is clear after all."
Welcome to the club of people that like to ignorantly tell me what I believe and get it wrong.
I've never said any such thing. I've never hinted at any such thing. I'm simnply saying that if Seraphim or you want to use a different definition that the one commonly found in the dictionary, you need to make that case. So far no one has. It's time to show us why it is inadequate and provide the new definition or let it go. Put up or shut up.
I asked you to define "aware" because I wanted to show that it's not a meaningful word on which to rest the definition of "conscious".
OK. Why is not a meaningful word? Are you using "aware" in a non-standard non-commonly understood way? To show a point you actually have to, you know, show it. Not just say you wanted to.
Why is that word inadequate?
-
Viviane
Are you forgetting about plants, which typically don't move?
Looks like someone has never heard of heliotropism, or Venus fly-traps
My assertion is simply that people are also guided by physical forces, just like rocks. If something jumps at you, you react to it. Action and reaction.
How is that the same? People can train themselves not to react. Rocks cannot. In any event, that true, all things that exist in this universe are subject to it's rules. How does that make the defition of living things harder?
It's not that simple, I'm afraid. By some ways of measuring, most of our body is non-human. If an alien was observing us and classified us as "walking water-bags which transport a mixture of bacteria", and then they observed us later and saw that some of the cultures of bacteria were different due to a change in diet, would they still think we were the same organism?
Your definition of "walking water-bags which transport a mixture of bacteria" would still be 100% true. Why wouldn't they?
Historically people have believed that we are special, that we choose how to react to things. I'm suggesting that this is a form of magical thinking, and that a human is just as predictable as a rock rolling downhill (assuming one is aware of all the factors that their brain is influenced by). This reduces consciousness to a form of input/output taking place on a chemical level.
People can change how they react to things. People can train themselves to no flinch at a loud noise or something to close to their face. It's a suggestion I've seen before, but so far, no one has connected the dots to show it to be true. You would be the first. I await your arguments.
-
Viviane
I just see the startle reflex as a straightforward example of a physical event (say, a housefly flying at your face) which generates a reaction.
Every single event in the universe that happens is a physical event. That is no way means we can have a working definition of life.
There may be some quantum uncertainty that could present a problem in this, but basically I just don't see where in the brain would reside free will or anything that could be termed a consciousness.
The free will or not debate is a long one. We propbably first need to understand what type of "no free will argument you are making" and, there is a working definition of consciousness that appears to accurately describe reality. Are you using a non-common definition of consciousness? You have yet to show why the definition I posted is lacking.
All the evidence is that the brain produces consciousness. Your issue seem to be that, so far, we haven't figured out exactly how it does it.
-
snare&racket
seraphim, it is very different to say that we cant ascribe consciousness to the brain and.... it is a very difficult thing, to ascribe consciousness to the brain.
It isnt that the brain couldn't do it, or could... it is just knowing how to go about proving it either way to a level of certainty is almost impossible in 2014.
This has led some to assume consciousness is non materialistic because of the problem, but that is just as untrue as me claiming it is purely materialistic... because we cant be sure either way because of the restrictions of testing the theory.
I for one have no issue with the brain having the senses and processing power to have what we consider a conscious thought process. I don't see the big issue in the concept at all, though I do respect the difficulty in proving its mechanism.
I do believe we will see conscious technology, A.I. that will help prove that input and processing can indeed lead to what we would consider conscious.
It is an interesting topic, but you can't make such claims seraphim, neither can the materialists.
As for how I see consciousness seraphim, We have input of vision, hearing, smell, touch and taste.....these are processed and linked together via memories i.e. neurons. We have processing power in the brain that can contemplate these inputs, it seeks patterns and previous experiences which mould our perception, then we have output such as contemplation of the inputs, largely looking for patterns, we have speech, we have movement, we have hormone reactions to the inputs etc. This may be called consciousness by some... I see nothing more than the sum of input, processing and output...so for me I see no need of an external source of anything. So I have no idea why people assume it. But as I made clear, this is almost impossible to prove as we have no means of testing it all ......yet.
-
Apognophos
Viviane, I can't take the time to answer all your individual nitpickings, it's too wearying. The basic point I'm making is that I believe the dictionary definitions are based upon assumptions. I'm not suggesting alternate definitions, I'm simply questioning that words like "consciousness" or "awareness" describe anything that can only be found in creatures with brains; when we do respond to things, it's ultimately just the result of chemical processes. It's really a very simple point that will get lost if we continue to debate minutiae, and I don't really think it is a controversial or groundbreaking assertion either.
Your counterpoint that people can moderate their reflexive reactions is the most interesting one. I still believe that this moderation is itself a reaction, over a longer-term, to outside stimuli. It's a choice that one makes to have greater control over one's body as a result of some information that one took in. Though it might be obscured through a very complex chain of chemical processes, there's always a cause and effect. In other words, people cannot act randomly. Therefore, the environment that we're in determines our reactions in a way that is inevitable, just like a rock rolling downhill.
-
Twitch
Well said, Snare
Some interesting thoughts and feelings displayed here on some of the pixels of this 1920x1080 resolution LCD monitor. The arrangement of ASCII characters is fascinating
-
Viviane
Viviane, I can't take the time to answer all your individual nitpickings, it's too wearying.
I can see where having your poorly thought through arguments destroyed would be tiresome. As it stands, all evidence point to consciousness being a result of a physical brain.
The basic point I'm making is that I believe the dictionary definitions are based upon assumptions. I'm not suggesting alternate definitions, I'm simply questioning that words like "consciousness" or "awareness" describe anything that can only be found in creatures with brains
There nothing wrong with questioning it. There's just no evidence for it. As for definitions, you went on and on a lot more about that, but that's already been covered.
Your counterpoint that people can moderate their reflexive reactions is the most interesting one. I still believe that this moderation is itself a reaction, over a longer-term, to outside stimuli.
Everything that happens in the universe is a physical action or reaction. It's at all like a rock rolling down a hill. You're starting to make a more meta-physical argument in the realm of "does free will exist", which is far outside the scope of this conversation. It's a fascinating topic, you should start a thread on it.