Happy Atheist Forum

All of Human knowledge needs Consciousness for its creation and existence. Thus the accuracy and reality of knowledge depends on the accuracy and reality of consciousness. Thus any theory about the consciousness  experience that concludes consciousness to be an illusion, falls into the same  logical inconsistency of a person that says “I always lie”

That is, it becomes a theory that cannot be evaluated to be true or false as the means to evaluating the theory, namely the conscious experience is false.

So then a theory on consciousness must be able to explain all of the axioms of consciousness in full.
Now then what are these axioms? I think the core axioms of Consciousness are the following
The Conscious experience consist of 3 components.
1.   The observed. (U ) (I am looking at a computer monitor, the monitor is U)
2.   The Observer (I)( The thing with me that I call me that’s looking at the monitor)
3.   Free will ( The thing I call me can press any key on the computer key pad)

Quote from: "fdesilva"All of Human knowledge needs Consciousness for its creation and existence. Thus the accuracy and reality of knowledge depends on the accuracy and reality of consciousness. Thus any theory about the consciousness  experience that concludes consciousness to be an illusion, falls into the same  logical inconsistency of a person that says “I always lie”

I do not accept your premise.

Quote from: "AlP"

Quote from: "fdesilva"All of Human knowledge needs Consciousness for its creation and existence. Thus the accuracy and reality of knowledge depends on the accuracy and reality of consciousness. Thus any theory about the consciousness  experience that concludes consciousness to be an illusion, falls into the same  logical inconsistency of a person that says “I always lie”

I do not accept your premise.

Could you please say why?

Quote from: "fdesilva"

Quote from: "AlP"

Quote from: "fdesilva"All of Human knowledge needs Consciousness for its creation and existence. Thus the accuracy and reality of knowledge depends on the accuracy and reality of consciousness. Thus any theory about the consciousness  experience that concludes consciousness to be an illusion, falls into the same  logical inconsistency of a person that says “I always lie”

I do not accept your premise.

Could you please say why?

Because it's not logical....here's why.

I always lie is illogical because someone who always lies can't make a truth statement about their always lying.

On the contrary, we are able to speak about our dreams being illusions knowing that they are illusions after we wake up.  Take this one step further and make our entire life experiences one giant dream...no matter what we think about that dream while we are dreaming it, it's still an illusion.

btw, I think you are using the word axiom incorrectly.

Quote from: "Whitney"Because it's not logical....here's why.

I always lie is illogical because someone who always lies can't make a truth statement about their always lying.

On the contrary, we are able to speak about our dreams being illusions knowing that they are illusions after we wake up.  Take this one step further and make our entire life experiences one giant dream...no matter what we think about that dream while we are dreaming it, it's still an illusion.

btw, I think you are using the word axiom incorrectly.

The dream is the content of a conscious experience. The content been an illusion does not make the Conscious Experience something that does not exists. Just as much as a story in a book may be fictitious but that does not mean the book is not real.
Why would axioms not be a proper term for the properties of Consciouness?

Quote from: "fdesilva"The dream is the content of a conscious experience. The content been an illusion does not make the Conscious Experience something that does not exists. Just as much as a story in a book may be fictitious but that does not mean the book is not real.
Why would axioms not be a proper term for the properties of Consciouness?

Aren't "axioms" widely accepted 'truths'?

Any-who... I see what you're saying about the dreams, in the sense that the dreaming itself is occurring. However, they are products of the unconscious or subconscious. What temporarily feels real and convinces us so (unless lucid) isn't happening in reality, beyond our own brain activity. Your opposition would argue just that: reality is what occurs within our very brain. I like your thinking behind the book analogy, but I think a more appropriate comparison may be a hallucination, mirage or some forms of schizophrenia, because during such we are not voluntarily fantasizing or aware we are experiencing an illusion, which is the real crux of the matter.

The idea that life is an illusion usually implies that our senses are a mere imperfect tool for detecting reality. It does not demand everything you know is wrong nor that you "always lie", rather that you simply cannot know.

As far as freewill goes - you can press any key, indeed. But only the ones you want to.  

Quote from: "Sophus"Aren't "axioms" widely accepted 'truths'?

Yes.

edit:  more specifically "self evident" truths

So um....why did you even bring up this topic.  I don't recall anyone making the claim that reality is an illusion.

Quote from: "Whitney"So um....why did you even bring up this topic.  I don't recall anyone making the claim that reality is an illusion.

As I mentioned earlier, often Christianity tries to pass all atheists off as Nihilists. Either way, still fun to think about. Lately I've been wondering what would be required of an artificial computer to gain awareness/consciousness under the premises that our brains are a computing system, functioning deterministically.  :D

Quote from: "fdesilva"Could you please say why?

Specifically the premise:

Quote from: "fdesilva"All of Human knowledge needs Consciousness for its creation and existence.

It seems inconsistent with reality.

Quote from: "AlP"

Quote from: "fdesilva"Could you please say why?

Specifically the premise:

Quote from: "fdesilva"All of Human knowledge needs Consciousness for its creation and existence.

It seems inconsistent with reality.

Are you saying the statement
P1 : All of Human knowledge needs Consciousness for its creation and existence
Is False.
If so please give me a counter example.

Quote from: "fdesilva"Are you saying the statement
P1 : All of Human knowledge needs Consciousness for its creation and existence
Is False.
If so please give me a counter example.

Knowledge is basically just obtaining data.  Bugs have knowledge of their surroundings (such as the vibrations they pick up in their antenna) but, as far as we can tell, do not have consciousness (self awareness).

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "fdesilva"Are you saying the statement
P1 : All of Human knowledge needs Consciousness for its creation and existence
Is False.
If so please give me a counter example.

Knowledge is basically just obtaining data.  Bugs have knowledge of their surroundings (such as the vibrations they pick up in their antenna) but, as far as we can tell, do not have consciousness (self awareness).

That is not a counter example as Bugs are not human. Please note I am talking of Human Knowledge

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Whitney"So um....why did you even bring up this topic.  I don't recall anyone making the claim that reality is an illusion.

As I mentioned earlier, often Christianity tries to pass all atheists off as Nihilists. Either way, still fun to think about. Lately I've been wondering what would be required of an artificial computer to gain awareness/consciousness under the premises that our brains are a computing system, functioning deterministically.  :D

Compters gain awareness would to me mean that they must satisfy the 3 properties or axioms I stated. If you agree with me are you game to explore if they can satisfy these 3 axioms

Quote from: "fdesilva"That is not a counter example as Bugs are not human. Please note I am talking of Human Knowledge

I think you need to work on conveying your point a bit more clearly.

Knowledge is knowledge....not sure what "human knowledge" is that makes the counter example not valid as bugs are also organic beings.

Btw, the word you are looking for is properties..not axiom.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "fdesilva"That is not a counter example as Bugs are not human. Please note I am talking of Human Knowledge

I think you need to work on conveying your point a bit more clearly.

Knowledge is knowledge....not sure what "human knowledge" is that makes the counter example not valid as bugs are also organic beings.

Btw, the word you are looking for is properties..not axiom.

Human knowledge is everything that humans know : now counter example please

Quote from: "fdesilva"Human knowledge is everything that humans know : now counter example please

Well, of course it would require consciousness for humans to have all the knowledge we currently are capable of obtaining as much of our knowledge is for the purpose of social iteration.

But your premise is still faulty....if consciousness (reality) is an illusion so is 'human knowledge' along with the keyboard you are currently typing on and your body.

Quote from: "fdesilva"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "fdesilva"Are you saying the statement
P1 : All of Human knowledge needs Consciousness for its creation and existence
Is False.
If so please give me a counter example.

Knowledge is basically just obtaining data.  Bugs have knowledge of their surroundings (such as the vibrations they pick up in their antenna) but, as far as we can tell, do not have consciousness (self awareness).

That is not a counter example as Bugs are not human. Please note I am talking of Human Knowledge

The thing that distinguishes knowledge that humans have from knowledge that bugs have is consciousness.  So when you say - All of Human knowledge needs Consciousness for its creation and existence - you're really saying - All of Consciousness needs Consciousness for its creation and existence.  So yes, because the logic of this statement is circular I would say it is false.

Quote from: "fdesilva"Are you saying the statement
P1 : All of Human knowledge needs Consciousness for its creation and existence
Is False.
If so please give me a counter example.

I'm not saying it's false; I'm just skeptical.

One counter-example for the premise would be prejudice. In many cases we learn prejudice unconsciously, just by being around people with the same prejudice.

Another counter-example would be Americans saying "um" when they're thinking. The Japanese say "eto" instead. Neither group learned it consciously. They just hear others saying it.

We don't need consciousness to know to pull our hand away from fire or scalding water. Even an infant can do that. I could go on...

Quote from: "AlP"

Quote from: "fdesilva"Are you saying the statement
P1 : All of Human knowledge needs Consciousness for its creation and existence
Is False.
If so please give me a counter example.

I'm not saying it's false; I'm just skeptical.

One counter-example for the premise would be prejudice. In many cases we learn prejudice unconsciously, just by being around people with the same prejudice.

Another counter-example would be Americans saying "um" when they're thinking. The Japanese say "eto" instead. Neither group learned it consciously. They just hear others saying it.

We don't need consciousness to know to pull our hand away from fire or scalding water. Even an infant can do that. I could go on...

Yes I agree with you that if you were to take all the actions that a human body is capable of doing, as human knowledge that statement is false. However if you were to consider the human knowledge that forms all of science or any other discipline that forms the basis of any theory, then that knowledge needs Consciousness for its existance and creation.

Quote from: "fdesilva"Yes I agree with you that if you were to take all the actions that a human body is capable of doing, as human knowledge that statement is false. However if you were to consider the human knowledge that forms all of science or any other discipline that forms the basis of any theory, then that knowledge needs Consciousness for its existance and creation.

I'm still skeptical. The following is anecdotal. I'm a professional software engineer (not a scientist but I have a science degree). I couldn't program fast enough to keep my job if I used conscious thought alone.

Conscious thought is painfully slow. It seems to me to be the thought process of last resort; it's very adaptive to new situations but, in terms of efficiency, no substitute for training your unconscious mind with years of practice in a particular skill. I wonder how many philosophical / scientific / theological ideas of merit have come from people so inexperienced in their field that they're relying on conscious thought alone.

I'm also skeptical about whether the conscious thought process is actually making any decisions. The idea of it being an illusory process of rationalization is intriguing. There have been some amazing psychology experiments that support this idea. I can hunt them down if anyone is interested.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Whitney"So um....why did you even bring up this topic.  I don't recall anyone making the claim that reality is an illusion.

As I mentioned earlier, often Christianity tries to pass all atheists off as Nihilists. Either way, still fun to think about. Lately I've been wondering what would be required of an artificial computer to gain awareness/consciousness under the premises that our brains are a computing system, functioning deterministically.  :D

I think you should. That kind of stuff interests me greatly.

What you're calling "human knowledge", as far as I can tell, is simply knowledge that happens to be possessed by humans and is not qualitatively different from any other knowledge, including that of bugs.


(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.zdnet.com%2Fblogs%2Fbugs-bunny.jpg&hash=95f22964901ca7670447f05aac51fc87eb1ee446)

Quote from: "AlP"

Quote from: "fdesilva"Yes I agree with you that if you were to take all the actions that a human body is capable of doing, as human knowledge that statement is false. However if you were to consider the human knowledge that forms all of science or any other discipline that forms the basis of any theory, then that knowledge needs Consciousness for its existance and creation.

I'm still skeptical. The following is anecdotal. I'm a professional software engineer (not a scientist but I have a science degree). I couldn't program fast enough to keep my job if I used conscious thought alone.

Conscious thought is painfully slow. It seems to me to be the thought process of last resort; it's very adaptive to new situations but, in terms of efficiency, no substitute for training your unconscious mind with years of practice in a particular skill. I wonder how many philosophical / scientific / theological ideas of merit have come from people so inexperienced in their field that they're relying on conscious thought alone.

I'm also skeptical about whether the conscious thought process is actually making any decisions. The idea of it being an illusory process of rationalization is intriguing. There have been some amazing psychology experiments that support this idea. I can hunt them down if anyone is interested.

Since you are into software let me put an equivalant statement to you. I will show its equivalance later.
P1. If I say I have an algoritham that shows conclusively that all algorithams will yeild a false result.
Would you say this algoritham is like saying "I always lie"

Quote from: "elliebean"What you're calling "human knowledge", as far as I can tell, is simply knowledge that happens to be possessed by humans and is not qualitatively different from any other knowledge, including that of bugs.


(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.zdnet.com%2Fblogs%2Fbugs-bunny.jpg&hash=95f22964901ca7670447f05aac51fc87eb1ee446)

Yes but it is the only knowledge we have at our disposal and any theory and what I am saying is all of this knowledge needs human consciousness for its creation and existance.

Yes, and repeating that assertion still fails to support it.

Quote from: "fdesilva"P1 : All of Human knowledge needs Consciousness for its creation and existence

Above is completely different premise from below.

Quote from: "fdesilva"P1. If I say I have an algoritham that shows conclusively that all algorithams will yeild a false result.
Would you say this algoritham is like saying "I always lie"

I think that the algorithm and the statement "I always lie" are both variants of the liar paradox and that the liar paradox is indeed a paradox.

If the paradox is to be the absurd consequence of a reductio ad absurdum argument, I suggest structuring it like this:

Assume for the purpose of contradiction that consciousness is an illusion.
... more premises and conclusions but no more assumptions ...
Final conclusion is "I always lie", which is paradoxical.
Therefore the one and only assumption (that consciousness is an illusion) must be false.

Quote from: "AlP"

Quote from: "fdesilva"P1 : All of Human knowledge needs Consciousness for its creation and existence

Above is completely different premise from below.

Quote from: "fdesilva"P1. If I say I have an algoritham that shows conclusively that all algorithams will yeild a false result.
Would you say this algoritham is like saying "I always lie"

I think that the algorithm and the statement "I always lie" are both variants of the liar paradox and that the liar paradox is indeed a paradox.

If the paradox is to be the absurd consequence of a reductio ad absurdum argument, I suggest structuring it like this:

Assume for the purpose of contradiction that consciousness is an illusion.
... more premises and conclusions but no more assumptions ...
Final conclusion is "I always lie", which is paradoxical.
Therefore the one and only assumption (that consciousness is an illusion) must be false.

Hi AIP
Thats is just brilliant. Heaps better than how I was trying to do it. thanks, Now how about the next step the Axioms or properties of Consciousness..

Quote from: "fdesilva"Now how about the next step the Axioms or properties of Consciousness..

Your axioms seem to be Descartes' subject / object model with the addition of free will, although perhaps Descartes included free will as well, can't remember offhand. I think they are at best an oversimplification, in much the same way as Freud's id / ego / superego model. I would not accept them as premises in the reductio ad absurdum argument outlined previously.

Quote from: "AlP"

Quote from: "fdesilva"Now how about the next step the Axioms or properties of Consciousness..

Your axioms seem to be Descartes' subject / object model with the addition of free will, although perhaps Descartes included free will as well, can't remember offhand. I think they are at best an oversimplification, in much the same way as Freud's id / ego / superego model. I would not accept them as premises in the reductio ad absurdum argument outlined previously.

Sure what I meant is How about you give me what you think are a minimal set of Properties, axioms of your consciouss experiance. thanks

Quote from: "fdesilva"Sure what I meant is How about you give me what you think are a minimal set of Properties, axioms of your consciouss experiance. thanks

I'm afraid I don't know of any that could be used in a deductive argument. In my experience, this kind of argument is only appropriate in specialized domains like math. You could try a college psychology textbook. Psychology by David Myers is good and there's a preview online.

Quote from: "karadan"

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Whitney"So um....why did you even bring up this topic.  I don't recall anyone making the claim that reality is an illusion.

As I mentioned earlier, often Christianity tries to pass all atheists off as Nihilists. Either way, still fun to think about. Lately I've been wondering what would be required of an artificial computer to gain awareness/consciousness under the premises that our brains are a computing system, functioning deterministically.  :D

I think you should. That kind of stuff interests me greatly.

So as not to hijack fdesilva's thread, here it is (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4767).

Quote from: "fdesilva"Compters gain awareness would to me mean that they must satisfy the 3 properties or axioms I stated. If you agree with me are you game to explore if they can satisfy these 3 axioms

Well, yes and no. I don't know that strictly visual observation is necessary for awareness. And perhaps you didn't mean to imply that by it, but rather simply that the being/object must have senses and the able to analyze them. I added another element to it: feelings as the driving force behind the will (which I can agree with as the third component but not necessarily Freewill. that's a bit of a different philosophical issue.)

"I always lie" can be:
1.True
2. False
3. Partly true/partly false
Which is it for you?
Is consciousness an illusion?
Some, belief systems, believe that ,what you call reality ,is in fact a dream.
So how do you propose to prove consciousness. As far as I am aware,there are no experiments to prove the existence of consciousness.
So what am I to do, take your word for it?

Quote from: "AlP"

Quote from: "fdesilva"Sure what I meant is How about you give me what you think are a minimal set of Properties, axioms of your consciouss experiance. thanks

I'm afraid I don't know of any that could be used in a deductive argument. In my experience, this kind of argument is only appropriate in specialized domains like math. You could try a college psychology textbook. Psychology by David Myers is good and there's a preview online.

Ok how about giving me the properties and explaining why they cannot be applied in an a deductive argument. Thanks

Quote from: "happynewyear""I always lie" can be:
1.True
2. False
3. Partly true/partly false
Which is it for you?
Is consciousness an illusion?
Some, belief systems, believe that ,what you call reality ,is in fact a dream.
So how do you propose to prove consciousness. As far as I am aware,there are no experiments to prove the existence of consciousness.
So what am I to do, take your word for it?

I dont need to prove to myself I am conscious, if a person is consciouss then it is self evident to that person. As such what matters is not finding a proof for consciouness but a minimal description of it. Having obtained this minimal description then it would be possible to investigate,how it can come about via properties of matter.

Quote from: "fdesilva"I dont need to prove to myself I am conscious, if a person is consciouss then it is self evident to that person. As such what matters is not finding a proof for consciouness but a minimal description of it. Having obtained this minimal description then it would be possible to investigate,how it can come about via properties of matter.

That so-called person could be a "zombie". You could be deluding youself. You could be an automaton with a program called "conscious".
These questions of consciousness have been asked by the best brains in science and philosophy.(the so called easy problem and the hard problem).
Is the concept that you have, about god, going to "throw any new light" on the subject?

Quote from: "happynewyear"

Quote from: "fdesilva"I dont need to prove to myself I am conscious, if a person is consciouss then it is self evident to that person. As such what matters is not finding a proof for consciouness but a minimal description of it. Having obtained this minimal description then it would be possible to investigate,how it can come about via properties of matter.

That so-called person could be a "zombie". You could be deluding youself. You could be an automaton with a program called "conscious".
These questions of consciousness have been asked by the best brains in science and philosophy.(the so called easy problem and the hard problem).
Is the concept that you have, about god, going to "throw any new light" on the subject?

From my perspective Everything I know is via my conscioussness, So if my Conscioussness is not real then nither is everything else. So from my perspective the only thing that I can be 100% sure of or assume is my consciouss experiance. That is the starting point of everything to me.
Now in the Axioms of Consciousness, that I gave previously in this post, I identified 2 components.
1. The Observer
2. The Observed.
The Hard problem is all about 1 and the easy all about 2.
Here is a link to a paper I wrote on this subject centuries ago
http://getbestprice.com.au/papers/Consciousness.htm (http://getbestprice.com.au/papers/Consciousness.htm)

Quote from: "Sophus"Well, yes and no. I don't know that strictly visual observation is necessary for awareness. And perhaps you didn't mean to imply that by it, but rather simply that the being/object must have senses and the able to analyze them. I added another element to it: feelings as the driving force behind the will (which I can agree with as the third component but not necessarily Freewill. that's a bit of a different philosophical issue.)

The observer feels the Observered. Yes to see = feel.

Quote from: "fdesilva"From my perspective Everything I know is via my conscioussness, So if my Conscioussness is not real then nither is everything else.

People who are not mentally well observe a reality that is not real but is the making of their own.  So how can you be sure that just because you perceive things to be real that they are?

Quote from: "fdesilva"So from my perspective the only thing that I can be 100% sure of or assume is my consciouss experiance.

I'm not really sure how you are defining consciousness.....but you have left off the viable option that all your experiences are simply the subconscious dream of a brain in a jar.

Quote from: "fdesilva"The observer feels the Observered. Yes to see = feel.

  How can looking at something produce a tactile sensation?

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "fdesilva"The observer feels the Observered. Yes to see = feel.

  How can looking at something produce a tactile sensation?

I don't know what 'to see=feel' is supposed to mean either.  How does that statement make sense?

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "fdesilva"From my perspective Everything I know is via my conscioussness, So if my Conscioussness is not real then nither is everything else.

People who are not mentally well observe a reality that is not real but is the making of their own.  So how can you be sure that just because you perceive things to be real that they are?

Quote from: "fdesilva"So from my perspective the only thing that I can be 100% sure of or assume is my consciouss experiance.

I'm not really sure how you are defining consciousness.....but you have left off the viable option that all your experiences are simply the subconscious dream of a brain in a jar.

Quote from: "fdesilva"The observer feels the Observered. Yes to see = feel.

  How can looking at something produce a tactile sensation?

Quote from: "Whitney"People who are not mentally well observe a reality that is not real but is the making of their own.  So how can you be sure that just because you perceive things to be real that they are?

That is precisely the point. All I have ever done or learnt is via my consciousness. For example when I read or do a practical experiment in physics its via my consciousness. So yes the whole thing could be that I am just a make up of a computer programme, yet that is irrelevant to me. What I am trying to do is make logical sense of what is dished out to me via my consciousness. As much as I have learnt an excepted the laws of physics dished out to me by my consciousness, I also want to see how within these laws consciousness can arise.  To this end I have come up with my own little theory, and at least from my perspective it is the best fit.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "fdesilva"The observer feels the Observered. Yes to see = feel.

  How can looking at something produce a tactile sensation?

I don't know what 'to see=feel' is supposed to mean either.  How does that statement make sense?

I am using the term feel to mean anything that comes via our senses. True there are more complex feeling, however you need to sort these simple ones first.

Quote from: "fdesilva"That is precisely the point. All I have ever done or learnt is via my consciousness. For example when I read or do a practical experiment in physics its via my consciousness. So yes the whole thing could be that I am just a make up of a computer programme, yet that is irrelevant to me. What I am trying to do is make logical sense of what is dished out to me via my consciousness. As much as I have learnt an excepted the laws of physics dished out to me by my consciousness, I also want to see how within these laws consciousness can arise.  To this end I have come up with my own little theory, and at least from my perspective it is the best fit.

So......

If you understand that it is not outside of possibility that we are computer programs or brains in a jar why did you say "Thus any theory about the consciousness experience that concludes consciousness to be an illusion, falls into the same logical inconsistency of a person that says “I always lie”
"?

You aren't exactly being very consistent in your views so it's confusing to follow what you are saying.

Quote from: "fdesilva"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I don't know what 'to see=feel' is supposed to mean either.  How does that statement make sense?

I am using the term feel to mean anything that comes via our senses. True there are more complex feeling, however you need to sort these simple ones first.

Why make up a new definition for feel when you can just say 'experience'?  That seems to be what you really mean.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "fdesilva"That is precisely the point. All I have ever done or learnt is via my consciousness. For example when I read or do a practical experiment in physics its via my consciousness. So yes the whole thing could be that I am just a make up of a computer programme, yet that is irrelevant to me. What I am trying to do is make logical sense of what is dished out to me via my consciousness. As much as I have learnt an excepted the laws of physics dished out to me by my consciousness, I also want to see how within these laws consciousness can arise.  To this end I have come up with my own little theory, and at least from my perspective it is the best fit.

So......

If you understand that it is not outside of possibility that we are computer programs or brains in a jar why did you say "Thus any theory about the consciousness experience that concludes consciousness to be an illusion, falls into the same logical inconsistency of a person that says “I always lie”
"?

You aren't exactly being very consistent in your views so it's confusing to follow what you are saying.

It is simply this.

Assume the Consciousness is created by brain in a jar or computer program
Then
Your statement
"Knowledge is basically just obtaining data. Bugs have knowledge of their surroundings (such as the vibrations they pick up in their antenna) but, as far as we can tell, do not have consciousness (self awareness)."

Is false as the bugs as well as their knowledge are not real either as they are a construct of the programme.  Thus showing the only knowledge you have is created by and exist via your consciousness. If it were a illusion so will everything it has dished out to you, that is the earth ,sun moon stars, laws of physics, the subconscious mind and its ability write computer programmes etc

So, you are just saying you don't like the idea that it could all be an illusion?

Is English your first language?

Quote from: "Whitney"So, you are just saying you don't like the idea that it could all be an illusion?

If it is then that’s a hypotheses that cannot be tested. As such not worth considering.

Quote from: "Whitney"Is English your first language?

It is now, as I live in aus. However I have not always lived here.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "fdesilva"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I don't know what 'to see=feel' is supposed to mean either.  How does that statement make sense?

I am using the term feel to mean anything that comes via our senses. True there are more complex feeling, however you need to sort these simple ones first.

Why make up a new definition for feel when you can just say 'experience'?  That seems to be what you really mean.

I guess experience is ok as well.
I feel pain. I experience pain. Either is ok with me.

Quote from: "fdesilva"If it is then that’s a hypotheses that cannot be tested. As such not worth considering.

Oh...so it's like god.

Quote from: "fdesilva"I guess experience is ok as well.
I feel pain. I experience pain. Either is ok with me.

But experience doesn't make sense to me in place of the word feel in your comment -

Quote from: "fdesilva"The observer feels the Observered. Yes to see = feel.

The observer experiences the Observed. Yes to see = experience.

I honestly don't understand what you mean.  I keep re-reading these posts and I'm just lost.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "fdesilva"If it is then that’s a hypotheses that cannot be tested. As such not worth considering.

Oh...so it's like god.

Most definitly yes. The only difference is that the believer says God reveals himself. Now if the computer Hypothesis also says the computer programme by desighn will reveal itself then thats cool

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "fdesilva"I guess experience is ok as well.
I feel pain. I experience pain. Either is ok with me.

But experience doesn't make sense to me in place of the word feel in your comment -

Quote from: "fdesilva"The observer feels the Observered. Yes to see = feel.

The observer experiences the Observed. Yes to see = experience.

I honestly don't understand what you mean.  I keep re-reading these posts and I'm just lost.

Lets make a new start.
You are looking at a compter screen.
Now how would you describe your conscious experiance while doing this?

Quote from: "fdesilva"Lets make a new start.
You are looking at a compter screen.
Now how would you describe your conscious experiance while doing this?

description - I am looking at a computer screen.  And?

Quote from: "fdesilva"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "fdesilva"If it is then that’s a hypotheses that cannot be tested. As such not worth considering.

Oh...so it's like god.

Most definitly yes.

I was not expecting you to agree with me on that one.  I would say that the same reason there is no need to go about our lives as if we are brains in a jar is why there is no need to go about our lives as if there is a god....both are unproveable despite how we may personally feel towards each concept.

Quote from: "fdesilva"The only difference is that the believer says God reveals himself.

I don't think the conflicting claims of various people affects the above comparison philosophically.  Plus, if either were actually revealing itself then it would no longer be a hypothesis that can't be tested.  In a way revelations have already been falsified due to the contradictions between what people think god is revealing to them...if it weren't unethical we could demonstrate this by completely separating a large group of kids from society so that they know nothing about culture/religion; teach them a language then induce a NDE when they become adults and see what kind of god they describe (if any at all).

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "fdesilva"

Quote from: "Whitney"Oh...so it's like god.

Most definitly yes.

I was not expecting you to agree with me on that one.  I would say that the same reason there is no need to go about our lives as if we are brains in a jar is why there is no need to go about our lives as if there is a god....both are unproveable despite how we may personally feel towards each concept.

Quote from: "Whitney"I was not expecting you to agree with me on that one.  I would say that the same reason there is no need to go about our lives as if we are brains in a jar is why there is no need to go about our lives as if there is a god....both are unproveable despite how we may personally feel towards each concept.

From my perspective, anybody that loves will have heaven on earth.

Quote from: "Whitney"I don't think the conflicting claims of various people affects the above comparison philosophically.  Plus, if either were actually revealing itself then it would no longer be a hypothesis that can't be tested.  In a way revelations have already been falsified due to the contradictions between what people think god is revealing to them...if it weren't unethical we could demonstrate this by completely separating a large group of kids from society so that they know nothing about culture/religion; teach them a language then induce a NDE when they become adults and see what kind of god they describe (if any at all).

The NDE experiment sounds interesting, however in the end its upto God. My take on this is as follows.
With regards to revelation this can take many forms. I guess the simplest is God Spoke to me kind of revelation.
Now obviously in some of these cases the person saying this is deliberately lying.
However there are many, where at least the person having this encounter truly believes it is true. Now from that persons perspective, they have met God, so it is deeper than a belief and as far as I am concerned, I am happy for them.
Now to the part of the story that I think is of interest to science.
It is the religious concept of God. While there are many challenging descriptions of this concept, I will take the simple description.
1. God has eternal life.
2. God can do anything.
3. God created Man and the universe out of love.
4. God choose to create all things in such a way, that the created will reflect the creative act of God.

Now it is 4 that makes all the difference to the scientist. God from 2 could have done it in a way that nobody will have a clue, instead God choose 4. It is 4 that leads to the Philosophical concept of God.

So then everything created must have this reflection of the creative act.
For me, I have found it in my study of conscioussness. How so, because my study has lead me to conclude without any degree of doubt, that the conscious experience is only possible, if there is an entity at the heart of this experience, that is outside the space-time continuum.  Obviously this hypothesis  of mine is falsifiable.

You completely just made up 1 through 4; they are not constant across the board of god claims....they are terribly inconsistent with Hinduism and Buddhism.

Quote from: "fdesilva"From my perspective, anybody that loves will have heaven on earth.

Do people need Jesus to love?

QuoteFor me, I have found it in my study of conscioussness. How so, because my study has lead me to conclude without any degree of doubt, that the conscious experience is only possible, if there is an entity at the heart of this experience, that is outside the space-time continuum. Obviously this hypothesis of mine is falsifiable.

Consciousness is a product of the brain. The brain is not outside of the space-time continuum.

Quote from: "Sophus":rainbow:

Quote from: "Sophus" Consciousness is a product of the brain. The brain is not outside of the space-time continuum.

If you find the axioms I gave for consciousness at the start of this thread acceptable, then I will show why those axioms cannot arise from the brain alone. Alternatively you can have a read of my paper and tell me where I went wrong http://getbestprice.com.au/papers/Consciousness.htm (http://getbestprice.com.au/papers/Consciousness.htm)

Quote from: "Whitney"You completely just made up 1 through 4; they are not constant across the board of god claims....they are terribly inconsistent with Hinduism and Buddhism.

Like I said on another thread, just like our understanding of physics, our understanding of the concept of God changes.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "fdesilva"Lets make a new start.
You are looking at a compter screen.
Now how would you describe your conscious experiance while doing this?

description - I am looking at a computer screen.  And?

Lets say there is a blind person that feels the compter screen.
What similarities if any can you find in the word "feels" and "see" used in the 2 descriptions?

Quote from: "fdesilva"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "fdesilva"Lets make a new start.
You are looking at a compter screen.
Now how would you describe your conscious experiance while doing this?

description - I am looking at a computer screen.  And?

Lets say there is a blind person that feels the compter screen.
What similarities if any can you find in the word "feels" and "see" used in the 2 descriptions?

Both words contain two e's and an s.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Both words contain two e's and an s.

ok so you dont find any similarities in the usage of the words "feel" and "see".
How about this:
Would you consider you looking at a Computer screen an example of a consciouss experiance?
How about a camera on a trypod taking a photo of the screen based on a timer, would the camera be having a consciouss experiance?

Quote from: "fdesilva"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Both words contain two e's and an s.

ok so you dont find any similarities in the usage of the words "feel" and "see".
How about this:
Would you consider you looking at a Computer screen an example of a consciouss experiance?
How about a camera on a trypod taking a photo of the screen based on a timer, would the camera be having a consciouss experiance?

It would depend on what you mean by 'conscious experience'.

To be clear, I'm not trying to be intentionally difficult.  I just don't feel comfortable assuming that I know what you're trying to say considering your previous posts.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"To be clear, I'm not trying to be intentionally difficult.  I just don't feel comfortable assuming that I know what you're trying to say considering your previous posts.

My understanding of what I mean by a "consciouss experiance" is what I gave by the 3 axioms at the start of this post. My guess is you dont agree with them. So why not tell me what your understanding of a "consciouss experiance" is and under that definition where the 2 cases fall. Thanks

Quote from: "fdesilva"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"To be clear, I'm not trying to be intentionally difficult.  I just don't feel comfortable assuming that I know what you're trying to say considering your previous posts.

My understanding of what I mean by a "consciouss experiance" is what I gave by the 3 axioms at the start of this post. My guess is you dont agree with them. So why not tell me what your understanding of a "consciouss experiance" is and under that definition where the 2 cases fall. Thanks

Does conscious experience even need to be clearly defined? Consciousness and experiences of consciousness are all relative seeing as we can easily alter our states of consciousness by sleeping or taking psychotropic drugs. Why should it require a clear definition?

Considering the concept of consciousness is subjective, I could come up with several definitions for the term conscious experience.  Some would apply to both examples and others wouldn't apply to either one.

Quote from: "karadan"Does conscious experience even need to be clearly defined? Consciousness and experiences of consciousness are all relative seeing as we can easily alter our states of consciousness by sleeping or taking psychotropic drugs. Why should it require a clear definition?

Yes,there are altered state of consciousness. By the same token there is also a state when you a person is said to be not consciouss. Now it may be possible to come up with a set of minimal properties that a consciouss state must have in order for it to be classified as such. However even if all of them dont have anything in common, it would be possible to take one example of a consciouss state, such as a person looking at a computer screen, and see what subjective properties it has and then see if it can be reproduced in some device.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Considering the concept of consciousness is subjective, I could come up with several definitions for the term conscious experience.  Some would apply to both examples and others wouldn't apply to either one.

"Considering the concept of consciousness is subjective"
Yes, this is the big statement that seems to be in the way of studying consciousness for what it is. Please consider the following. Let's say I am studying the properties of water. Now you would say that the study of water is something objective, am I right? However I put it to you that it is as subjective, as the study of conscioussness. Let me explain.
Lets take 2 people engaged is the properties of water.
Person A, may say that it is a liquid and is colourless.
Person B,  may say the same or say if he/she as eyes that overly sensitive to part of the spectrum that it is green etc.
Now I put it to you that if A and B say the same thing, then what they are really saying is that  water induces the same conscious experience with regards to fluidity and colour.
Further and this is the key to the point I want to make.
If these 2 people were the only people in the universe. It is possible that from this study they will each come up with a list of properties. In this list lets say A says its colourless and B says no. Then they would conclude colour is subjective. So all the properties they can agree will be considered objective and those that they cannot would be subjective.
Please note that I am not saying that the water does not have any objective properties. The point I am making is that when person A is studying water, what A is studying is the model of the water created by and within its conscious experience. That model is very much as subjective to A as the “conscious experience” of A is subjective to A.

Quote from: "fdesilva"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Considering the concept of consciousness is subjective, I could come up with several definitions for the term conscious experience.  Some would apply to both examples and others wouldn't apply to either one.

"Considering the concept of consciousness is subjective"
Yes, this is the big statement that seems to be in the way of studying consciousness for what it is. Please consider the following. Let's say I am studying the properties of water. Now you would say that the study of water is something objective, am I right? However I put it to you that it is as subjective, as the study of conscioussness. Let me explain.
Lets take 2 people engaged is the properties of water.
Person A, may say that it is a liquid and is colourless.
Person B,  may say the same or say if he/she as eyes that overly sensitive to part of the spectrum that it is green etc.
Now I put it to you that if A and B say the same thing, then what they are really saying is that  water induces the same conscious experience with regards to fluidity and colour.
Further and this is the key to the point I want to make.
If these 2 people were the only people in the universe. It is possible that from this study they will each come up with a list of properties. In this list lets say A says its colourless and B says no. Then they would conclude colour is subjective. So all the properties they can agree will be considered objective and those that they cannot would be subjective.
Please note that I am not saying that the water does not have any objective properties. The point I am making is that when person A is studying water, what A is studying is the model of the water created by and within its conscious experience. That model is very much as subjective to A as the “conscious experience” of A is subjective to A.

I don't think your analogy works.  Water is a physical thing.  Consciousness is a concept.  The model of the water is still a model of a physical thing which can be quantified.  Consciousness is not quantifiable in any form.  A model of your idea of consciousness doesn't make the concept of consciousness any more quantifiable.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I don't think your analogy works.  Water is a physical thing.  Consciousness is a concept.  The model of the water is still a model of a physical thing which can be quantified.  Consciousness is not quantifiable in any form.  A model of your idea of consciousness doesn't make the concept of consciousness any more quantifiable.

Are you saying this
“Consciousness is not quantifiable in any form”
Because
“Consciousness is a concept.”
?

Quote from: "fdesilva"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I don't think your analogy works.  Water is a physical thing.  Consciousness is a concept.  The model of the water is still a model of a physical thing which can be quantified.  Consciousness is not quantifiable in any form.  A model of your idea of consciousness doesn't make the concept of consciousness any more quantifiable.

Are you saying this
“Consciousness is not quantifiable in any form”
Because
“Consciousness is a concept.”
?

Consciousness is not quantifiable because consciousness is a non physical concept.

a non physical and subjective concept.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"a non physical and subjective concept.

What would you call a Circle?

Quote from: "fdesilva"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"a non physical and subjective concept.

What would you call a Circle?

A circle.

Listen, you're not making sense to me.  I've played along with you for several posts now and you're still not making sense.  Maybe if you're making sense to someone else, they'll jump in.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Listen, you're not making sense to me.  I've played along with you for several posts now and you're still not making sense.  Maybe if you're making sense to someone else, they'll jump in.

Thanks for your responses much appreciated.
Here is my comments on what you have said to anybody else that may be reading this thread.
Consciousness is as you say a non physical and subjective concept. However that does not make it non quantifiable.
A circle is also a non physical and subjective concept.  It becomes  a non physical and objective concept only when 2 or more people agree on its definition. Obviously a circle is quantifiable ones its definition is agreed to.  The same applies to the concept of consciousness.

but a circle is not merely a concept it's also a definition to describe the physical shape of an object...I can physically hold one.


if you are trying to say that words are meaningless unless society agrees on their meaning...well, duh; not anything insightful there.

Quote from: "Whitney"but a circle is not merely a concept it's also a definition to describe the physical shape of an object...I can physically hold one.


if you are trying to say that words are meaningless unless society agrees on their meaning...well, duh; not anything insightful there.

Yes a circle is a concept that has a definition. It is by using this definition that you can verify if a given object has a shape (another concept) that fits the definition of the concept circle
Consciouness is also a concept that a physical object (brain) is said to have. It as such needs a definition

Quote from: "fdesilva"A circle is also a non physical

Yes. That is, only if you mean the entirely flat geometry conception of it.

Quoteand subjective concept.

No. Mathematics is objective.

One thing philosophers always do is define the concept of what they're discussing first. So it doesn't really matter if everyone is in agreement with that or not, because the point is not to become a dictionary but communicate their thoughts with the world. I often throw out the word 'love' without meaning it in the way I define actual 'love'. It is essential we are on the same page as to what consciousness means to you.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "fdesilva"A circle is also a non physical

Yes. That is, only if you mean the entirely flat geometry conception of it.

Quoteand subjective concept.

No. Mathematics is objective.

One thing philosophers always do is define the concept of what they're discussing first. So it doesn't really matter if everyone is in agreement with that or not, because the point is not to become a dictionary but communicate their thoughts with the world. I often throw out the word 'love' without meaning it in the way I define actual 'love'. It is essential we are on the same page as to what consciousness means to you.

“It is essential we are on the same page as to what consciousness means to you.”
This is precisely  what I did at the very start of this post
The Conscious experience consist of 3 components.
1. The observed. (U ) (I am looking at a computer monitor, the monitor is U)
2. The Observer (I)( The thing with me that I call me that’s looking at the monitor)
3. Free will ( The thing I call me can press any key on the computer key pad)

And what I have been doing subsequently is asking people that don’t agree with my definition to put forward one that they think.

My request to pinkocommie
“My understanding of what I mean by a "consciouss experiance" is what I gave by the 3 axioms at the start of this post. My guess is you dont agree with them. So why not tell me what your understanding of a "consciouss experiance" is and under that definition where the 2 cases fall. Thanks”

My request to AIP
“Ok how about giving me the properties and explaining why they cannot be applied in an a deductive argument. Thanks”

With regards
 To your statement
“No. Mathematics is objective.”
Whats your take on
"Considering the concept of consciousness is subjective"
Yes, this is the big statement that seems to be in the way of studying consciousness for what it is. Please consider the following. Let's say I am studying the properties of water. Now you would say that the study of water is something objective, am I right? However I put it to you that it is as subjective, as the study of conscioussness. Let me explain.
Lets take 2 people engaged is the properties of water.
Person A, may say that it is a liquid and is colourless.
Person B, may say the same or say if he/she as eyes that overly sensitive to part of the spectrum that it is green etc.
Now I put it to you that if A and B say the same thing, then what they are really saying is that water induces the same conscious experience with regards to fluidity and colour.
Further and this is the key to the point I want to make.
If these 2 people were the only people in the universe. It is possible that from this study they will each come up with a list of properties. In this list lets say A says its colourless and B says no. Then they would conclude colour is subjective. So all the properties they can agree will be considered objective and those that they cannot would be subjective.
Please note that I am not saying that the water does not have any objective properties. The point I am making is that when person A is studying water, what A is studying is the model of the water created by and within its conscious experience. That model is very much as subjective to A as the “conscious experience” of A is subjective to A.

Quote from: "fdesilva"“It is essential we are on the same page as to what consciousness means to you.”
This is precisely  what I did at the very start of this post
The Conscious experience consist of 3 components.
1. The observed. (U ) (I am looking at a computer monitor, the monitor is U)
2. The Observer (I)( The thing with me that I call me that’s looking at the monitor)
3. Free will ( The thing I call me can press any key on the computer key pad)

No, you've jumped straight to what you think leads to it but leaving out what consciousness itself is. You must answer "What is the conscious being?" before you can answer "how is the conscious being conscious?" or "what allows for this to take place?". Don't get me wrong, it's necessary to put those ideas out there too. But it's not the whole story.

QuoteWhats your take on
"Considering the concept of consciousness is subjective"
Yes, this is the big statement that seems to be in the way of studying consciousness for what it is. Please consider the following. Let's say I am studying the properties of water. Now you would say that the study of water is something objective, am I right? However I put it to you that it is as subjective, as the study of conscioussness. Let me explain.
Lets take 2 people engaged is the properties of water.
Person A, may say that it is a liquid and is colourless.
Person B, may say the same or say if he/she as eyes that overly sensitive to part of the spectrum that it is green etc.
Now I put it to you that if A and B say the same thing, then what they are really saying is that water induces the same conscious experience with regards to fluidity and colour.
Further and this is the key to the point I want to make.
If these 2 people were the only people in the universe. It is possible that from this study they will each come up with a list of properties. In this list lets say A says its colourless and B says no. Then they would conclude colour is subjective. So all the properties they can agree will be considered objective and those that they cannot would be subjective.
Please note that I am not saying that the water does not have any objective properties. The point I am making is that when person A is studying water, what A is studying is the model of the water created by and within its conscious experience. That model is very much as subjective to A as the “conscious experience” of A is subjective to A.

Interpretations can be 'subjective' but that doesn't mean someone can't be flat out wrong about what definition they use for something, depending upon the context. The use of the word 'theory' for example can either mean a mere 'hypothesis' or a validated observation. This is why you have to clarify what you're speaking of first. Because no one can disagree with what your use of the word means in this context.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "fdesilva"“It is essential we are on the same page as to what consciousness means to you.”
This is precisely  what I did at the very start of this post
The Conscious experience consist of 3 components.
1. The observed. (U ) (I am looking at a computer monitor, the monitor is U)
2. The Observer (I)( The thing with me that I call me that’s looking at the monitor)
3. Free will ( The thing I call me can press any key on the computer key pad)

No, you've jumped straight to what you think leads to it but leaving out what consciousness itself is. You must answer "What is the conscious being?" before you can answer "how is the conscious being conscious?" or "what allows for this to take place?". Don't get me wrong, it's necessary to put those ideas out there too. But it's not the whole story.

"What is the conscious being?"
Before you can answer that don’t you think you need to define, what you mean by “conscious”?
Otherwise the answer “A being that is conscious” would be fine.
To me consciousness is an experience that is defined by the axioms I gave before

Update

Maybe I did not understand your question "what is the conscious being"
The being is the person having the conscious experiance, in this case me looikg at the screen

There is only one way to know for sure...
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americasheadlines.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F07%2Fmatrix_pills.jpg&hash=98a94750f35e45c664a4dc6b64a3700e23bdaa74)
You take the blue pill, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.

You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Quote"What is the conscious being?"
Before you can answer that don’t you think you need to define, what you mean by “conscious”?

That was my point. "What is the conscious man" is another way of asking "what is consciousness itself". Not "who is the conscious man".

I agree with everything that fdesilva is saying here. Can we all go home now?

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote"What is the conscious being?"
Before you can answer that don’t you think you need to define, what you mean by “conscious”?

That was my point. "What is the conscious man" is another way of asking "what is consciousness itself". Not "who is the conscious man".

I thought I was giving a minimal description of consciousness with my axioms. Let me try something slightly different.
I will define a new phrase. I will call it the “alpaness experience”
My definition of this phrase is as follows.
“alpaness experience”
This is the experience that I have when I watch a computer screen and I press a key on the keypad. This experience has  3 components to its description
1. The observed. (U ) (I am looking at a computer monitor, the monitor is U)
2. The Observer (I)( The thing with me that I call me that’s looking at the monitor)
3. Free will ( The thing I call me can press any key on the computer key pad)