“I always Lie” and theories of consciousness

[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

[Whitney]

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.

[pinkocommie]

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.

[AlP]

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...

[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.

[AlP]

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.

[karadan]

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.  

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

[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.

[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"

[fdesilva]

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.

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.

[elliebean]

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

[AlP]

P1 : All of Human knowledge needs Consciousness for its creation and existence

Above is completely different premise from below.

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.

[fdesilva]

P1 : All of Human knowledge needs Consciousness for its creation and existence

Above is completely different premise from below.

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..

[AlP]

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.

[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