Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

Originally posted by dragonridr
As far as faith in theories hardly the minute a theory doesnt hold up its tossed out

Obviously, this is not the case with emergentism.

Originally posted by HarryTZ

Originally posted by dragonridr
As far as faith in theories hardly the minute a theory doesnt hold up its tossed out

Obviously, this is not the case with emergentism.

More behavioral science not my field thank god.

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by HarryTZ

Originally posted by dragonridr
As far as faith in theories hardly the minute a theory doesnt hold up its tossed out

Obviously, this is not the case with emergentism.

More behavioral science not my field thank god.

I really just hope that someday soon, science will wake up from its materialistic dream.

Originally posted by dragonridr

I understand. What I was getting at though was the way science holds *faith* in its so-called 'theory' (which has absolutely no evidence backing it up) that consciousness is a brain function.

Well the problem becomes what is consciousness or how to define it. This argument has been going on ever since man first asked the question why am i here. I really dont think scientists can solve something thats been debated for thousands of years. Science can show how the brain works but it cant explain why we seem different why do we ask questions? Is this only limited to man kind or do other animals also wonder about life and the world around them? There is no easy answer and until we can communicate with another life form for all we know we are it. Are we just the next step in intelligence is there one after us again valid questions but nothing science can answer.

So i guess what im saying is you cant blame science for not knowing an answer when we cant even define the question,what is consciousness? As far as faith in theories hardly the minute a theory doesnt hold up its tossed out great example is classical mechanics at first quantum theories were assumed to hold and support mechanics and for a while did. But eventually quantum mechanics came about mostly because cracks appeared in mechanics. Then there was an entire shift of everything we thought we knew and quantum mechanics was born. Realize that albert Einstein wasnt even comfortable with quantum mechanics even though unbeknownst to him he helped create it.

This is a garbage response. You said science cannot solve problems that have been going on for thousands of years, where do you come up with this. Science is suppose to be the chief tool and resource of knowledge and reality. Consciousness and its existence is such a large part of reality (yes our reality, or how we know of reality) that it should be a pillar of focus, investigation and discussion in science. Noones blaming science for not having an answer, I am merely curious as to what science thinks of the problem..you know hypothesis and theory,ideas, discussion.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by dragonridr

I understand. What I was getting at though was the way science holds *faith* in its so-called 'theory' (which has absolutely no evidence backing it up) that consciousness is a brain function.

Well the problem becomes what is consciousness or how to define it. This argument has been going on ever since man first asked the question why am i here. I really dont think scientists can solve something thats been debated for thousands of years. Science can show how the brain works but it cant explain why we seem different why do we ask questions? Is this only limited to man kind or do other animals also wonder about life and the world around them? There is no easy answer and until we can communicate with another life form for all we know we are it. Are we just the next step in intelligence is there one after us again valid questions but nothing science can answer.

So i guess what im saying is you cant blame science for not knowing an answer when we cant even define the question,what is consciousness? As far as faith in theories hardly the minute a theory doesnt hold up its tossed out great example is classical mechanics at first quantum theories were assumed to hold and support mechanics and for a while did. But eventually quantum mechanics came about mostly because cracks appeared in mechanics. Then there was an entire shift of everything we thought we knew and quantum mechanics was born. Realize that albert Einstein wasnt even comfortable with quantum mechanics even though unbeknownst to him he helped create it.

This is a garbage response. You said science cannot solve problems that have been going on for thousands of years, where do you come up with this. Science is suppose to be the chief tool and resource of knowledge and reality. Consciousness and its existence is such a large part of reality (yes our reality, or how we know of reality) that it should be a pillar of focus, investigation and discussion in science. Noones blaming science for not having an answer, I am merely curious as to what science thinks of the problem..you know hypothesis and theory,ideas, discussion.

edit on 28-6-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

Science is ill equipped for philosophical questions like consciousness and how its defined. Well figure out exactly how the brain works but the question of is there more will all ways be around.

reply to post by dragonridr


Science is concerned with physical reality is it not? Is consciousness something that exists in physical reality? What is causing you to approach consciousness so differently then everything else science gung holy studies? You think philosophy is adequate in coming to an understanding of consciousness?

snip

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Science is concerned with physical reality is it not? Is consciousness something that exists in physical reality?

Without consciousness there would be non-existence... so... I dunno.

What is causing you to approach consciousness so differently then everything else science gung holy studies?

Um... because consciousness is different. A lot different.

You think philosophy is adequate in coming to an understanding of consciousness?

No.

reply to post by HarryTZ


In what way is it different/a lot different? I am assuming the average physicist or materialist would claim consciousness is some assemblage, some reaction, some process, and interaction of matter and energy. All we know that exists is matter and energy (so its very non explanatory to say "duh consciousness is material and emergent, its matter and energy", thats just admitting we know very little of the nature of matter and energy, if it is able to become and build consciousness), so if not that, what do you think consciousness is?

reply to post by ImaFungi


Life is composed of self replicating information sequences which are regulated by complex chemical reactions that are instructed by these information forming inputs to self regulate. Consciousness is required to devise information regulation and coding. Ask any computer programmer if simple matter can create and regulate computer code. They will tell you that code does not write itself. Programmers write code or it would not exist. RNA and DNA are carbon codex for life.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

In what way is it different/a lot different? I am assuming the average physicist or materialist would claim consciousness is some assemblage, some reaction, some process, and interaction of matter and energy. All we know that exists is matter and energy (so its very non explanatory to say "duh consciousness is material and emergent, its matter and energy", thats just admitting we know very little of the nature of matter and energy, if it is able to become and build consciousness), so if not that, what do you think consciousness is?

Ask any Buddhist or mystic and they'd tell you that it's not matter that gives rise to consciousness, but the other way around. The materialistic view of consciousness is illogical, irrelevant, and just downright stupid. It's just an assumption made by the narrow minds of science, and it is based on absolutely no empirical evidence.

When we get down to the quantum weirdness of our universe this becomes even more evident, yet scientists have somehow been able to just tiptoe around their own research and discoveries. Everyone knows about the double-slit experiment, which proved that photons have the ability to 'know' if they are being observed and react accordingly. We also know that without consciousness our universe would just be a field of probable objects and events, formless, timeless and spaceless. Yet these glaring discoveries have just been swept under the rug, probably because the implications do not fit into the current paradigm.

What is consciousness, then? Well, this is a tough question. Consciousness cannot be considered something, because something relies on consciousness to exist. The best way to describe it then, would be the void within which experience occurs. There really is no other logical way to look at it.

reply to post by Barcs part 1

Originally posted by Barcs
Just because we utilize a certain process or function to make technology does not necessarily mean, it was originally designed as technology.

I'm not saying that the designs found in nature are necessarily technology. I'm saying (again) that there is design in nature which is made evident by the several technologies that have been dervived from these designs.

It's a fallacy to assume that humans getting ideas from natural processes indicates they were originally designed. There is no logical link between those ideas.

Where's the assumption? It's exactly what biomimcry is. Emulating nature's designs, processes, and systems to solve human problems.

You're basically saying, design from design = False. How is that logical? The biomimetic discipline is backed and practiced by engineers, architects, innovators, et al and it specifically acknowledges design in nature.

A design implies that it was created.

Yes, and I believe it's this implication that scares science, and it's why the community won't acknowledge the design inherent in nature.

But hey, we can always start with the origins of DNA if you'd like…

You mistake 'humans implementing a design based on nature' with 'the design of nature'.

I'm not mistaking anything. That a technology can be devised from a design shows that there is a design present. This is not an illogical statement nor a mistake. You can apply this to anything. Design inspires design all the time. But because the inspiration comes from a natural design suddenly it becomes fallacy and ceases to be logical, or even a design? This seems to be where you're caught up.

Saying nature is designed is a guess, whether humans design things with it or not.

Not a blind guess. Design from design lends credence to the idea. But you'll first have to come to grips with design in nature.

We use wood to build many things. That doesn't mean trees were originally designed. It's a faulty argument that only shows humans design things.

I see what you're trying to get at but it is your argument that may be a bit faulty. Wood is not the designed component, it's the "after product". We don't necessarily use wood to inspire a design. We use it to construct. The tree itself, as a system, is what has inspired design in many ways. The functionality, the purpose, etc. Quite brilliant.

Nature works. We know this, so being inspired to design things in similar ways makes sense. That's science, not proof of ID.

Im not trying to prove ID the "theory". I'm trying to show evidence for design, and the intelligence within it.

Please demonstrate where any scientist has found ID in nature. You can't because nobody has. People just guess about it making leaps of logic as you have.

Well, maybe not the explicit principle behind ID. But science is bound by it's current paradigm. There seems to be more of an interest to adhere to the current paradigm and to shun or ignore that which doesn't fit. Objectivity is paramount until it's not.

Having said that, design in nature has in fact been acknowledged; by scientists, engineers and architects. Actual experts in the field of design. Biomimicry is explicitly based off of the proven design systems existing in nature. But you'll just to tell me that I'm mistaken.

Evolution does not always show clear advancement. The white shark hasn't significantly changed in hundreds of millions of years. While ancient apes became intelligent humans, hell, the entire history of mammals, virtually nothing has changed with the white shark.

In a broader sense I would say it does show very clear advancement. Your example of the white shark doesn't disporve this. The fact that it hasn't changed is because its design is exceptionally superior and has stood the test of time. The white shark has been a dominant feature of the sea for millions of years; perfectly suited to its environment. Dare I say no need for further advancement. Could it be natures best creation for that particular environment? Apes evolved into humans. Whales became better, eventually. Advancement is the general idea, with an organizing principle.

reply to post by Barcs part 2


(con't below)

Originally posted by Barcs
Objective evidence has to specifically prove the claim it is referring to. It cannot be circumstantial and must be based on repeated observation or experimentation. Your evidence is subjective.

Except science doesn't deal in proofs. If you refer back to what biomimetics is. I think it directly addresses your questions about objecivity. The process involves repeated observation and implementation of designs found in nature. Not just by copying. There requires a very deep understanding of the processes at work. It inevitably reveals the technology found in biology. I'm not making this up.

biomimetics' did not become consensus until 1991 when the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research began to formalise the field and ran a workshop to investigate what biology could offer in terms of the design and processing of materials. Since then the remit has broadened and a better definition was devised by Professor Julian Vincent who heads the Centre for Biomimetic and Natural Technologies at the University of Bath (ref 9): “The abstraction of good design from nature”. Over millions of years of evolution nature has solved many engineering problems, undoubtedly making many mistakes along the way, by turning to nature engineers can tap into this wealth of knowledge and avoid making the same mistakes.

www.sebiology.org...

How can you claim that evolution doesn't acknowledge genetic replication of DNA?

Never made that claim.

From simple cellular life, tissues and organs; to the diversity of plants and animals, families, communities and global ecosystems- life is progress at every scale. If anything, the evolution of life is the increase of biological organization. If life originates and makes evolutionary progress — without complexity and organizing inputs from outside — then clearly something inherent in itself must be organizing it. We should be on a mission to figure this out...

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
But because the inspiration comes from a natural design suddenly it becomes fallacy and ceases to be logical, or even a design? This seems to be where you're caught up.

This.

But science is bound by it's current paradigm. There seems to be more of an interest to adhere to the current paradigm and to shun or ignore that which doesn't fit. Objectivity is paramount until it's not.

And this.

It's sad that so many people trust science as God's word when the parts that are the most important have been tiptoed over, danced around, and even downright ignored, to keep the status quo in tact.

reply to post by dragonridr


I wasn't necessarily referring to thought as a mechanism to process information. I'm talking more about intelligence as it relates to consciousness.

As far as belief and science I separate the 2 so my beliefs on how the universe works are far different then what can be proved.

At some point those two may very well come together.

reply to post by HarryTZ


Why would I want to ask a buddhist or mystic anything like that, what authority do they have over truth?

I believe your interpretation of the double slit experiment is incorrect.

All we really know that exists is energy and matter, particles, waves, radiation. If consciousness is not a product, or does not exist because of the interaction of matter, energy and radiation, what are you theoretically proposing? Is it really logical to conclude that consciousness is composed of absolute nothing and is nothingness? I dont think so because my consciousness exists in space and time, and it is something, All of the somethingness we know to exist is something, in the definitive terms of energy and matter. How can something exist, but not be caused to exist in a physical manner, non physical manners and actions are 'nothing', and nothing is always nothing.

I think all that exists, and all that can potentially ever exist is, order and chaos, and lesser and greater relative forms there of ( and im not even sure in this universe chaos can exist). Rules, laws, discreteness, order. From simpler rules and laws of universal physics, consciousness has been birthed. The human body and consciousness is just a more complex form of order capable by the precession of those simpler universal laws along with the quantized material destined to follow those laws and allow those laws to be and govern them. (in a non new agey way) Its fractal, or like an algorithm, or exponential. Biological evolution seems to be the most novel expressions of the potential patterns that are capable with a clashing of rules, laws and material. Consciousness seems to be a constant result of this (in the sense that this moment is brand new, and the next one will be too, and if you dont eat your consciousness will perish, it is always been broadcast through a series of organizations and rules in your body, capturing the many frames per second of data from the external and interal worlds and somehow making whatever you are aware of this) , and it seems to be a tool, with which it is capable to speed up the process of novel creation and order organization. I cant help but think that the beauty is in the eye of the beholder of an eye, and that the prize of existence is first and formost existing. That nature was urged, or urging to produce systems that could control nature and themselves. I wish a science buff would acknowledge or argue my statement, when I claim that the only thing that could ever matter or mean anything in any reality, is an entity capable or awareness/experience/consciousness, and what that says about this nature, having created conscious entity in bulk (not to mention the most probable; entire universe being full of planets with aware entities).

Originally posted by ImaFungi
I wish a science buff would acknowledge or argue my statement, when I claim that the only thing that could ever matter or mean anything in any reality, is an entity capable or awareness/experience/consciousness, and what that says about this nature, having created conscious entity in bulk (not to mention the most probable; entire universe being full of planets with aware entities).

I actually don't think there is anything to argue with what you're saying here. If I may speculate- I think that evolution is the physical manifestation of the advancement of consciousness in biological matter. I do believe that consciousness is a field, and is not something necessarily produced by the brain, or is created when we are. Our brain, being more advanced than any other that we know of, taps into this field (as the mind) on a much higher level than perhaps a fish would, or even a plant. But make no mistake all living things are connected to this field on one level or another. Some humans have claimed to experience higher levels of consciousness. I think there is something very real about folks who have experienced NDE's. We should take all if this into account and compare experiences.

Unfortunately science is more concerned with what is observable or can be tested. That which our 5 senses will allow us to experience in this physical world. There's more to it than that. I'm sure of it.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


What do you mean when you say consciousness is a field?

I think the problem with consciousness is that it is not an object ( like a baseball is an object, I dont think there is a consciousness particle) but a constant fleeting process, its a constant exchange of energy that somehow animates into our awareness. Would you say the computer is an object, without its source of constant energy input what good is a computer, without a humans constant energy input what good is a human. I know that doesnt explain or get to the bottom of anything. Consciousness is one of the most confounding mysteries, what is going on to allow me to be me and know im me right now, what allows me to internally view information I have helped create and store. What part of me is internally viewing and visualizing? How can I see information inside my mind?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

Why would I want to ask a buddhist or mystic anything like that, what authority do they have over truth?

Their knowledge comes from direct experience of pure consciousness. But there's really no way to know until you have the experience for yourself (and realize there is no 'you' having the experience). Plus they understood about the quantum world thousands of years before it was even a concept for the rest of humanity.

I believe your interpretation of the double slit experiment is incorrect.

You can make a claim like this but unless you back it up with your own interpretation, there's no reason for me to take you seriously.

My interpretation is that photons have the ability to know that they are being observed. Try and explain this away any way you like but the only logical (albeit beyond our current paradigm) explanation is consciousness.

All we really know that exists is energy and matter, particles, waves, radiation. If consciousness is not a product, or does not exist because of the interaction of matter, energy and radiation, what are you theoretically proposing? Is it really logical to conclude that consciousness is composed of absolute nothing and is nothingness?

What's illogical about it? Since our current way of looking at things has turned out absolutely nothing, plus the fact that a conscious experience itself is so radically different than anything physical (in a way, though, this is not true, because every experience of the physical that you have, including any scientific study and philosophizing, is within consciousness), how else do you say we look at it? Consciousness is not a 'thing' in itself, but the 'space' within which experience occurs. Our brain just operates our physical senses, and is what creates experience.

I dont think so because my consciousness exists in space and time, and it is something, All of the somethingness we know to exist is something, in the definitive terms of energy and matter.

Time is a construct of your mind, existing only in relation to events and changing circumstances. Space is just what we call the distance between objects. It's not actually a thing, just a concept. 'Energy' is just a codeword we use to describe... well... whatever it is that constitutes the physical. What I am suggesting (along with thousands of years of mystics and Buddhas) is that energy = consciousness. And there is a very convincing theory that the net energy of the universe is exactly 0. Consciousness = 0, or nothing.



Everything in the physical universe is relative to everything else. Hot cannot be, without cold. Up cannot exist unless accompanied by down. 'Here' doesn't exist unless 'there' is present. In this way, opposites are not actually opposite, but complementary. See now, how 'something' is just an illusion? If 'something' was all there was, there wouldn't be anything.

How can something exist, but not be caused to exist in a physical manner, non physical manners and actions are 'nothing', and nothing is always nothing.

Are you suggesting that the universe was 'caused' in a 'physical manner'? I hope not, because that would be severely illogical.