The Dawkins' Fallacy

[PoopShoot]

At this point you need to define "consciousness" for the sake of this discussion.  As I see it, the common definition of "consciousness" (when asked to quantify it) is nothing more than the individual counting itself as a variable in its computation.  Were someone to program a computer to include itself in its own computations, I think consciousness would immediately emerge.  Video games already show emergent decision making abilities.  As I posted elsewhere:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5729&p=83088&hilit=beta+testing#p82969
This reminds me of an article I have in the July '10 issue of Game Informer magazine. It was about notable game glitches. Many of them were unexpected emergent behaviors in the game that wasn't programmed in, yet happened anyway.

1 - The Elder Scroll IV: Oblivion - The game contains a quest wherein a prisoner needed to be spoken with. The glitch was that he was periodically found dead. An intensive investigation discovered that the guards were getting hungry and killing the prisoner for his food. Remember, the guards were not programmed to do this, they chose to do so on their own based on an interaction of other programmed behaviors.

2 - Dead to Rights: Retribution - The main character's (Jack) pet dog was programmed to fetch ammunition. One of the side effects to this was that he recognized live grenades as ammunition, which he would fetch and obediently drop at Jack's feet. They didn't program the dog to fetch live grenades, indeed, they aren't even ammunition, yet they had ot add programming to tell the dog that ONLY inactive grenades were valid ammo.

3 - Terminus - In testing, missiles fired would simply blow up. It turns out that the mechanics of the game were so detail oriented that the game was accounting for the missile's diameter and it was getting caught in the firing tube. They didn't program the game to worry about the size of the missile, but by programming those two details, the game assumed that the missile would get stuck in the tube.

4 - The Maw - One of the achievements in this game was to feed every creature. It was soon discovered, however that some of the creatures were disappearing. The conundrum was solved when a tester noticed a hostile creature slamming the small creatures into mountains. When one was slammed hard into a narrow crevice, the game didn't like that it was getting stuck, so it spewed the little guys out at near infinite velocity, rocketing them into space. Again, the game wasn't programmed to do this, it did so on its own.

The above examples are nothing compared to some of the emergent properties found in nature, but then computer programs are simple compared to the detail in nature as well. The first example to me is the most striking, as it involves the computer generated character making a decision it wasn't programmed to make.

[Thumpalumpacus]

God as unknowable comes from Eastern philosophy/religion and Christian and Sufi mystics.  Supposedly God is known only through his/her/its effects in the human mind, or perhaps for some the world also.

I know.  My point is that talking about the unknowable is a profitless enterprise.  What might you teach, or learn?

For myself I don't buy that, but I do understand, as believed in cognitive science, that consciousness while being the result of brain processing is more than that, and it is based on first-person experience versus third-hand description.

What experience do you have wherein you could discount entirely the physical interactions of neurons?  And how did you know that?

[ablprop]

As I see it, the common definition of "consciousness" (when asked to quantify it) is nothing more than the individual counting itself as a variable in its computation.

I don't really have anything to add, other than to say those are some pretty interesting examples. Thanks for sharing those.

[meta]

That's a heavy subject: consciousness.  Perhaps we need to discuss this in another forum, or here if you wish.

Yeah, except I don't see how you're going to get anywhere with me. Without hard evidence, I don't see how I could move away from my current stance that consciousness, while fascinating and deeply mysterious, probably doesn't include any new physics. It's probably electromagnetic in origin, and the laws of electromagnetism are pretty well understood on a fundamental level.

I've been reading more and more about these incredible brain scanning technologies (MEG and the SQUIDS) that allow researchers to sense thoughts. More and more the evidence shows what of course had to be true all along - thoughts are real things, physical events in the brain. Consciousness doesn't feel like a chemical reaction, but I think that's the default position until there's hard evidence to the contrary.

Do you count first-person experience as evidence?  It is distingished from third-person reporting.  I would say quantum physics rather than electromagnetic force.  Where do you see force in consciousness?  Sensing someone elses thoughts is very different from experiencing the thoughts by the thinker.  Of course thoughts are produced by brain function, aka events, but that doesn't mean that's all they are.  You may have a problem with your criterion for evidence.

Richard.

[meta]

God as unknowable comes from Eastern philosophy/religion and Christian and Sufi mystics.  Supposedly God is known only through his/her/its effects in the human mind, or perhaps for some the world also.

I know.  My point is that talking about the unknowable is a profitless enterprise.  What might you teach, or learn?

For myself I don't buy that, but I do understand, as believed in cognitive science, that consciousness while being the result of brain processing is more than that, and it is based on first-person experience versus third-hand description.

What experience do you have wherein you could discount entirely the physical interactions of neurons?  And how did you know that?

The point is that God is not known through discursive thought and language, and cannot be abstracted into concepts, much less theologies.  But God can and is known through his/her/its effects in the human mind, and maybe (but doubtful) also in the world.  You have different categories there.  Of course ALL experience of any sort is produced by neurons, their connections, networks, etc.  But that doesn't imply that is the only explanation.  Most theoretical scientists claim consciousness "emerges" from brain processes, as something totally dependent on them but yet different.  Where would you place first-person experience?

[ablprop]

I would say quantum physics rather than electromagnetic force.

I say electromagnetic because I don't think it likely that consciousness is the result of gravity, the strong interaction, or the weak interaction. Quantum mechanics of course is at the root of everything, but it still has to act on things like mass, charge, and frequency.

What I mean is that I doubt that consciousness, once and if it is understood, will add anything to fundamental physics. I think it will be an emergent property of known laws. Of course I could be wrong.

As for the rest of it, I can experience my own thoughts, but I have no idea what they are, any more than I have any idea what complex chemistry my body is performing when I digest an apple.

[hackenslash]

It isn't clear whether consciousness can be achieved by computers, and it's entirely possible that the mind is qualitatively different from anything we'll ever be able to produce.

For anybody really interested in this topic, I recommend The Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose. Supremely hard going, as all his books seem to be, because he doesn't dumb anything down, but ultimately rewarding.

[PoopShoot]

Most theoretical scientists claim consciousness "emerges" from brain processes, as something totally dependent on them but yet different.

Emergence doesn't mean it's different, emergence means that simple processes interact in complicated ways.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The point is that God is not known through discursive thought and language, and cannot be abstracted into concepts, much less theologies.  But God can and is known through his/her/its effects in the human mind, and maybe (but doubtful) also in the world.

Yes.  The point of my first comment is that if god is ineffable and insensible, then how the eff do you know him?  Be specific.

 

You have different categories there.  Of course ALL experience of any sort is produced by neurons, their connections, networks, etc.  But that doesn't imply that is the only explanation.

Of course these are different categories.  My question is: how can you state surely that those effects are god?  "I think so" is not enough for me, and in the absence of anything else I don't see this idea as worthy of much attention.  Let's ask some questions:  By what mechanism does this proposed deity project consciousness into the brain?  Is there a consciousness module? How parsimonious is this explanation compared to what we currently know? What specific effects can be attributed to this deity to the exclusion of other factors?  Any?  All?  None?

Most theoretical scientists claim consciousness "emerges" from brain processes, as something totally dependent on them but yet different.

They claim that it emerges from the interaction of various brain processes, positing "consciousness" as that part of the brain assigned to oversee the smooth interaction of the many modules.  

Where would you place first-person experience?

What does this question mean?  Where would I place it in the brain?  Where would I place it in terms of evidence?  Might you clarify?

[meta]

I suggest your learning "emergence theory," which you can find on the internet.  You might begin at Wikipedia.

When I say God's effects in the human mind, this is not physical in itself, although of course it is produced by brain processes.  As someone said, a thought is not a set of neurons but something else.  Thought is an emergence, not explain by physical entities, and the same with consciousness.  The evidence for God, again unknown discursively, is the overwhelming records globally and throughout all the past since record-keeping, attempts to explain mystical experiences of God without discursive thought and language.  Thus they try as best as they can, imperfectly.

Richard.

[Whitney]

The evidence for ghosts, again unknown discursively, is the overwhelming records globally and throughout all the past since record-keeping, attempts to explain mystical experiences of ghosts without discursive thought and language.  


^Just because people talk about and keep record of a belief doesn't mean it is based in reality.

[i_am_i]

The evidence for God, again unknown discursively, is the overwhelming records globally and throughout all the past since record-keeping, attempts to explain mystical experiences of God without discursive thought and language.

Well, then let's have a look at some of that evidence, some of these "overwhelming records globally and throughout all the past since record-keeping."

[DropLogic]

I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed...but each time one of Jac's "arguments" is successfully refuted, he does not revisit it.  He is a master at deflection, and I seriously wonder if someone as clearly intelligent as him actually believes everything he is saying.  This may all be a game to him, to see if he can make any of us angry.

[Tank]

I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed...but each time one of Jac's "arguments" is successfully refuted, he does not revisit it.  He is a master at deflection, and I seriously wonder if someone as clearly intelligent as him actually believes everything he is saying.  This may all be a game to him, to see if he can make any of us angry.

I doubt that as there would be far easier ways to achieve that aim with a lot less work.

[DropLogic]

I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed...but each time one of Jac's "arguments" is successfully refuted, he does not revisit it.  He is a master at deflection, and I seriously wonder if someone as clearly intelligent as him actually believes everything he is saying.  This may all be a game to him, to see if he can make any of us angry.

I doubt that as there would be far easier ways to achieve that aim with a lot less work.

He says with paragraphs what can be said with a few words or one sentence.  He kind of reminds me of Kent Hovind, talking fast, but never really saying anything.