It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by sirnex
How do you possibly not understand it? Do you not agree that hunger is something you experience, something that leads to a decision making process? Do you not agree that prior physical events take place that lead to hunger?
Name any other experience and we can reduce it enough to show that the experience stems from previous physical root causes and effects.
What they (including Harris in the case of your video) do is distract you from this fact by discussing how even if "free will" is an "illusion", it's still an important illusion, and thereby drawing their pseudo-distinction between determinism and fate.
Trains of thought like "what should i get my daughter for her birthday"
"I know i'll take her to a pet store and have her pick out some tropical fish" convey the apparent reality of choices freely made, but from a deeper perspective, speaking both subjectively and objectively, thoughts simply arise - What else could they do? Unauthored and yet authored to our actions.
As Daniel Dennett has pointed out, many people confuse determinism with fatalism. This gives rise to questions like "If everything is determined, why not should i do anything? Why not just sit back and see what happens"
Why did i use the term "inscrutable" in the previous sentence? I must confess that i do not know, was i free to do otherwise? What could such a claim possibly mean? Why, afterall, didn't the word "opaque" come to mind? Well it just didn't...Am i free to feel that "opaque" is a better word when i just do not feel that it is a better word? Am i free to change my mind? Of course not; it can only change me; it means nothing to say that "a person would have done otherwise had he chosen to do otherwise" because a person's choices merely appear in his mental stream as if sprung from the void.
See, I am on the same page with you on the fact that the experience is caused in time by a physical event.
Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
See, I am on the same page with you on the fact that the experience is caused in time by a physical event. Perhaps I had been asking the question poorly, but that's not what I meant by "cause". What I mean is, whatever is going on in the brain that, say, "represents" the experience of hunger, is correlated with the experience itself. How does this correlation work? How does the experience part of it work? Why the apparent distinction between the externally observable neural events, and the subjective "raw sensation" of hunger?
If you understand the question, then congratulations, you now understand what "qualia" means.
But, we do all that. Why? Nobody knows, in scientific terms, why this happens. And, I suspect that, as we conduct science today, under the materialistic/reductionistic paradigm, we won't be able to.
Originally posted by sirnex
It's an alright analogy, but rather simplistic in my opinion. The wiring and programming of a computer is not set up the same way as a brain, so comparing the two and assuming that one is somehow better than the other is rather moot. The operation is just too different.
Originally posted by sirnex
Our brains posses the capacity to process noises into language, both inner and outer. We can communicate with one another and process internal thought. We can tap into the brain and see where this process occurs. We can monitor it, and we're even getting to the point where we can intercept and decode it and view it on a computer terminal.
Well, and that's kinda the point of the analogy. There are good arguments for considering the fact that consciousness might be a non-computable phenomenon, i.e. it cannot be reduced to an algorithm. This has serious implications for the success of AI, and also challenges the idea of viewing the brain as just a "fancy" computer.
Well, and that's kinda the point of the analogy. There are good arguments for considering the fact that consciousness might be a non-computable phenomenon, i.e. it cannot be reduced to an algorithm. This has serious implications for the success of AI, and also challenges the idea of viewing the brain as just a "fancy" computer.
Nothing has been decoded, if you meant that literally. We just view areas of the brain lighting up on fMRI scanners and things along those lines. We don't really have a clue how consciousness arises, or works. Really, the brain and consciousness is probably the least understood thing in science today.
I disagree. There are no good arguments for such a notion. Saying it's non-computable and pointing out our failings in AI then claiming it must be immaterial is just wishful nonsense. Yes, we don't understand consciousness. Yes, our AI research and technology is limited.
Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by EthanT
Well, and that's kinda the point of the analogy. There are good arguments for considering the fact that consciousness might be a non-computable phenomenon, i.e. it cannot be reduced to an algorithm. This has serious implications for the success of AI, and also challenges the idea of viewing the brain as just a "fancy" computer.
I disagree. There are no good arguments for such a notion. Saying it's non-computable and pointing out our failings in AI then claiming it must be immaterial is just wishful nonsense. Yes, we don't understand consciousness. Yes, our AI research and technology is limited. Lack of knowing or being able to reproduce through computers doesn't negate the issue that consciousness can be physically altered through various means. It has a physical cause and can be impaired by physical causes. There is no indication at all that it's something else.
Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by NewlyAwakened
See, I am on the same page with you on the fact that the experience is caused in time by a physical event.
Awesome! So qualia/experience has a physical root cause, just being that the inner workings and physical mechanisms is unknown in full at this moment in time.
So now we know that, we can move on to try and understand determinism and how it relates to qualia/experience stemmed from physical root causes and how that leads to different decision making processes dependent upon the initial causation. Simply dropping all variables that lead to a final effect will lead you no where in understanding.
Perhaps such quantam theorems could explain conscioussness further? Obviously any grand-unification theory would have to emcompass conscioussness as well as "particle" theory as such like
Did I claim consciousness has to be immaterial becuse of that? No, you added that in. Claiming so would not be "wishful nonsense". It would be unscientific (that is, making a claim without any evidence to back it up). But, it is equally unscientific then to say that consciousness is definitely only material, since we have no evidence for that either. The only real reason to claim that is dogmatic - that is, to claim that the only way to view things is under the current materialistic paradigm.
Just because we can alter consciousness via physical alterations of the brain does not at all mean it is sourced by the brain. It would be like smashing your TV with a sledgehammer and saying you destroyed Gilligan's Island, withouth realizing the signal is being broadcasted all around you in the air via EM waves. Once again, it is unscientific to make a claim either way without having a full working model of consciousness (like we have for a TV). But, in the meantime it is okay to say what your gut is telling you ... but remember, that's all it is.
So, to say that the brain can definitely and fully be modeled by algorithms/computers, as we understand them today, seems naive at best.
Also, if you want to give NDEs and OBEs a honest scientific look, you'll see that there are consistent (and to some extent repeatable) observations that cannot be explained by the current materialisitic model of consciousness. And, isn't science supposed to be about explaining observation?
The physical mechanisms that cause experience are known, though. But the problems of experience and the "inner workings" are unexplainable, and by necessity, will continue to unexplainable with strict determinism.
Originally posted by sirnex
We have plenty of evidence that consciousness arises from physical biological processes.
Originally posted by sirnex There is no known "transmitter of consciousness" Nor any known "receiver of consciousness".
Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by ExistentialNightmare
We have plenty of evidence that consciousness arises from physical biological processes
Originally posted by sirnex
There is no known "transmitter of consciousness" Nor any known "receiver of consciousness". No proponent/follower of such a notion can even bother to offer up any mechanism that can be verified/tested for such a thing.
Originally posted by sirnex
Most NDE's occur in heart attack patients, which I assume some processes, biochemical in nature still are active in there mere seconds to minutes after the heart stops. These people don't actually die, they're still alive, hence why they are alive today. Death is an irreversible state of existence. You just don't come back from being dead. With that said, no person who has DIED, has came back to report anything of an afterlife.
Originally posted by sirnex
Let's not also forget that NDE's vary from culture to religious belief to mental state of mind. Or that we can chemically induce NDE's in people who are very much alive and healthy. They don't die and still experience them via physical chemicals. There was even an experiment done where they used electromagnetic fields to induce visions of god or alien abduction experiences.
Originally posted by sirnex
I disagree. There is no such thing as chance or randomness in our universe. Everything is proceeded by a cause.
No, we don't. We don't even have a viable model on how consciousness works, let alone evidence to back that model up.
Nor, can that be done for the materialistic idea of the brain sourcing consciousness.
There are plenty of NDEs with not only a stopped heart but a flat-lined brain, for some time.
Negative. Conventional explanations of chemicals, drugs, oxyen deprivation etc, do not fully explain the observations from NDEs or OBEs, nor have they fully induced them.
Ever heard of quantum mechanics?
Cause and Effect is not the same thing as determinancy.
You are confusing the sensation for the perception.
The biological processes create the experience but not that which experiences.
The brain is the receiver.
Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Jezus
You are confusing the sensation for the perception.
The biological processes create the experience but not that which experiences.
OK, describe the difference between the experience of pain and the perception of pain. Should be a fun thing.
The brain is the receiver.
Really? Exactly how does it "receive" consciousness? Where does it come from? How is it transmitted?
Really now? Can we just be the slightest bit honest here instead of emptily and arbitrarily exclaiming utter baseless garbage?
Originally posted by sirnex
Yea, heard of it. Know and understand a little of it. Says nothing of these magical wishful notions that people like "what the bleep do we know" claim it says. Science is science man, it isn't religion, it isn't spirituality, it isn't mysticism, it isn't magical. It's observing physical things that exist within a physical reality. Like it or not.