Thread: CS Lewis

Originally Posted by Noogah

No, what you're describing is thought. Thought is not the same as consciousness.

Do you even understand what the word means? Sentience. Cognition. Conscious perception. These things are not brought about by thought. A computer can think, and we know it is not a sentient being. The origins of cognition are still unknown.

A computer has thought. Do you think that all it computes just pops out of nowhere? It works on the same concepts as the brain. If consciousness arises out of the brain, why assume magic souls? How many computers resemble the structure of a brain? How do you then know that computers can't be sentient.

Dude, I feel like I'm talking to a rock.

Read the following from beginning to end, and do not skim. Obviously you have not payed any attention to what I have said, as you keep ignoring it, and the saying the same thing.

Thought does NOT bring about consciousness.

It cannot, and does not, and few claim that it does. The most mature sicentists will admit that there are some things they do NOT understand. Consciousness is one of them. There is no rational way to explain consciousness by means of thought. We know that computers are not sentient because of the absense of any component capable of causing such. They are simply complex mazes and trap doors of electricty bouncing about. There is no logical way that this pattern, or the pattern of the human brain can bring about consciousness.

SENTIENCE, COGNITION, AND CONSCIOUSNESS ARE NOT SAME THING AS THOUGHT!

Illogical unscientific and impossible.

Get it? Thought is not sentience. Thought is not sentience. Thought is not sentience.

Must I say this again?

Originally Posted by Noogah

Dude, I feel like I'm talking to a rock.

Read the following from beginning to end, and do not skim. Obviously you have not payed any attention to what I have said, as you keep ignoring it, and the saying the same thing.

You only feel like you're talking to a rock because you somehow seem to think everybody shares your ideas. If you got over this little superiority complex you might also understand that there are things about your world view I don't know, since I seem to have misplaced my powers of telepathy. It won't happen again your honour.

Originally Posted by Noogah

Thought does NOT bring about consciousness.

It cannot, and does not, and few claim that it does. The most mature sicentists will admit that there are some things they do NOT understand. Consciousness is one of them.

First, saying that it cannot and does not bring about consciousness contradicts your next statement of mature scientist not understanding it. Unless you are above science now? Or should I say better than the mature scientists.

Originally Posted by Noogah

There is no rational way to explain consciousness by means of thought.

Actually there is a rational way to explaining consciousness by means of thought, since it's the only way it exists while it can be perceived at the same time. Assuming anything else is speculation and really pointless.

Originally Posted by Noogah

We know that computers are not sentient because of the absense of any component capable of causing such. They are simply complex mazes and trap doors of electricty bouncing about. There is no logical way that this pattern, or the pattern of the human brain can bring about consciousness.

Oh, we know computers are not sentient because of the absence of any component? Wow, you really are out of my league now. Please, enlighten me I'd like to know more about this components - why they can't be in computers and why they are in humans.

I'd also like to know why there is no logical way these patterns you speak of can't bring about consciousness.

Originally Posted by Noogah

SENTIENCE, COGNITION, AND CONSCIOUSNESS ARE NOT SAME THING AS THOUGHT!

Illogical unscientific and impossible.

Get it? Thought is not sentience. Thought is not sentience. Thought is not sentience.

Must I say this again?

I know this is how you do things in your church, but here repeating things over and over again until they become true just doesn't cut it.

Explain why thought and consciousness can't be connected, in light of the scientific facts about the brain and how it works. I'd also like to applaud you again for being above the mature scientists in acknowledging your own limitations. It's good I have you here so you can tell me what's possible or impossible.

Just to throw in a new point of view ...

... a friend of mine has a university degree in traditional physics
and quantum physics, was always a science expert in school -
he graduated best in class majoring in math and in physics,
but also biology and chemistry always in a way "came to him".
(He sucked at foreign languages and this kind). Anyway - he
believes in god and is actually one of the very few people I know
that does - and furthermore he actually does see evidence in the
fields of what he has studied.

Now, I know he's christian. But in germany barely anybody belives
the whole,.. earth is 12.000 years old and dinosaurs are a lie stuff.
But he still does believe in god, sees it backed by science and is
not insane or 'dumb'.

And - I'm pretty sure I made this point here before, or am going to
side both parties against me with this, but to read most of the debates
that have anything to do with 'evolution', 'religion' or 'spirituality' are
really tiring. My reason for not wanting to contribute anything about
my own thoughts or beliefs on that matter, is because (careful, gross
generalization) everybody seems to be a fundamentalist here. And not
a single one of you, nor me of course, has actually a clue of the 'big picture'.
It can be so much fun discussing this stuff and actually understanding
different kind of views (same goes for the 'sacred geometry' thread btw);
much more so than, either trying to bash others whilst not listening or
having a conversation with people only agreeing, which comes close to,
metaphorically speaking, one giant suck-fest. Like little children, jeez.

This post is dedicated to whomever wants to feel adressed. Furthermore
it is transferable to 95% of Religion/Spirituality, 60% of Extended Discussion
and 40% of The Science Forum. I forgot what this thread was all about, but
those were just my thoughts after scrolling through various threads, so sorry
if it is misplaced. Thank you for your attention. That was all.

Originally Posted by Noogah

I'll do the Hokey Pokey and I'll turn myself around and say that's what it's all about !

A simulation is not the real thing. I'll clap my hands and sing hay ho!

Consciousness is not being simulated, the functions of a brain are. The result is consciousness. There is nothing inherently conscious about a brain, so by replicating the system you create one which will become conscious.

What is not to get?

The economy is a concept which is made up of thought.

No, an economy is an abstraction of all human interactions on a massive scale. It is 'made up of' people and interactions between them.

A computer application is magnetic engraving of memory on a slab of metal being run by electric patterns, all of which are physical.

A computer application is an abstraction of those.

I am not an idiot. Thinking, and being conciouss are entirely seperate things.

You are an idiot, and they are different. Consciousness is an abstraction of complex thought. Thought is caused by a brain and therefore consciousness is caused by a brain.

Computers are not conciouss.

Neither were you until you were about 5 years old.

1. There are few scientific facts on this topic, and they don't prove your viewpoint, or mine.
2. Don't get personal. I never got personal with you. You don't know my reasons.

All of the facts on the subject prove my point. Consciousness is the result of a brain. The trick now is being able to demonstrate it on a computer. The notion of a soul is ridiculous at best.

I don't know your reasons because you won't tell me them, and also because you are pretty much a complete idiot.

Noogah's argument basically boils down to 'it's impossible because it just is'.

Noogah, unless you can explain the logical argument behind why the brain can't cause consciousness, then you're not even arguing. You're just shouting.

And I will consider to assume that it is the case that consciousness is caused by the brain, due to the logical evidence which I provided.

The evidence was the effects of drugs on the brain and consciousness, the spacial distribution of conscious processes throughout the brain, and observed neural correlates of conscious experiences (i.e. the 'celebrity' neuron).

A few more I've thought of include the differences in brain activity during periods of conscious- and unconsciousness, and the fact that your consciousness is clearly associated with your brain which would be extremely unlikely if it could just be associated with anything.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

If you got over this little superiority complex you might also understand that there are things about your world view I don't know, since I seem to have misplaced my powers of telepathy

It isn't my feelings of "superiority" which I have none of. It is because you didn't even bother to aknowledge the argument. You never contradicted it. You just repeated your own views. Now if THAT isn't feeling superior, than I don't know what is.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Unless you are above science now? Or should I say better than the mature scientists.

Nope. I didn't claim to have the answer either. I only said that thought was not to blaim.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Actually there is a rational way to explaining consciousness by means of thought

Do share it. If you do, you'll shatter the foundations of biology itself.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

why they can't be in computers and why they are in humans.

I didn't claim to know which component was missing, nor did I claim that were such a component discovered, it could not be installed in a computer. We know what compnents are in the computer, and we know that none of them are able to bring forth sentience.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

I'd also like to know why there is no logical way these patterns you speak of can't bring about consciousness.

I did. There are none, and none can be concieved. Think about it for five seconds. A slab of silicon, metal wire, transistors, and a surge of electricity does not result in sentience.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

I know this is how you do things in your church

You know nothing about me, or my church, and I ask that you do not mention either again, as though you actually knew.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

but here repeating things over and over again until they become true just doesn't cut it.

My goal is not to make it truth. My goal was simply to force you to finally aknowledge the contradiction, as you repeatedly ignored it.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Explain why thought and consciousness can't be connected, in light of the scientific facts about the brain and how it works.

I believe that I already have done so. Furthermore, I should like to see you explain how they can. You have claimed to have the answer, and I should very much like to read it.

Originally Posted by Xei

Noogah's argument basically boils down to 'it's impossible because it just is'.

Read my posts. You'll find that I have said much more. Until you stop ignoring me, I find it quite appropriate to ignore you.

Originally Posted by A roxxor

Neither were you until you were about 5 years old.

...

Do share it. If you do, you'll shatter the foundations of biology itself.

Define what consciousness is without looking up a dictionary definition or reading the wikipedia article. I.e. in your own words please.


[quote]I didn't claim to know which component was missing, nor did I claim that were such a component discovered, it could not be installed in a computer. We know what compnents are in the computer, and we know that none of them are able to bring forth sentience.[/qoute]

Augh you retard. A brain is the source of sentience. Thus, replicating a brain as software and giving it the appropriate I/O peripherals will result in sentience.

I did. There are none, and none can be concieved. Think about it for five seconds. A slab of silicon, metal wire, transistors, and a surge of electricity does not result in sentience.

Neither does a mass neurons, until you connect it to something.

You know nothing about me, or my church, and I ask that you do not mention either again, as though you actually knew.

Are you denying that your insane peers spout this drivel in a church?

My goal is not to make it truth. My goal was simply to force you to finally aknowledge the contradiction, as you repeatedly ignored it.

Contradiction?

I believe that I already have done so. Furthermore, I should like to see you explain how they can. You have claimed to have the answer, and I should very much like to read it.

Humans are conscious entities. Humans have brains. The brain has been observed to affect conscious and mental state, as well as shape and form it. Therefore, human consciousness comes from the brain. The brain is a neural network which works primarily through associative links. Therefore, replicating this system (Say, with a computer) should therefore produce consciousness.

What is wrong with that?

You have yet to explain your reasoning at all.

...

The average age is about... 3 or 4. But judging by your fabulous display of stupidity I am going to guess you must have taken a while to develop properly. Just my observation.

Read my posts. You'll find that I have said much more. Until you stop ignoring me, I find it quite appropriate to ignore you.

I'm not a fucking idiot so don't try that rubbish.

Quote precisely where you have given any explanation at all rather than saying 'it's just illogical' with no justification whatsoever.

Define what consciousness is without looking up a dictionary definition or reading the wikipedia article. I.e. in your own words please.

I don't see why you want me to explain it. Attmepting too would only give me a headache. To get a decent grasp on the topic, you need an article about as big as Wikipedia's.

Neither does a mass neurons, until you connect it to something.

Yes. Your soul.

Are you denying that your insane peers spout this drivel in a church?

I am serious this time a roxxor. I want no more of these life insults. My peers are not insane. And, yes. Iam denying that they say what I say, as I have come up with these theories pretty much by myself, and reading similar theories.

What is wrong with that?

You explained what happens. You didn't explain how it happens. Your previous posts seem to suggest that you, and all biologists for that matter have an excellent grasp on the topic. I should very much like to explain it.

I am going to guess you must have taken a while to develop properly

I have vivid memories of the events leading up to my fifth birthday, and memories on beyond that, compared with dates in my pesonal history which I know to be correct.

I'm not even sure if an IMPLIED facepalm is necessary here. Where on earth did you hear that!?

I'll take your silence as an admission of your disingenuity.

I can barely understand why you'd be intellectually dishonest with others, but with yourself..?

It really must be pretty hellish having to doublethink constantly.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'll take your silence as an admission of your disingenuity.

Originally Posted by Noogah

Until you stop ignoring me, I find it quite appropriate to ignore you.

I'll aknowledge you when your ready to hold a proper debate, and I won't have to worry about repeating myself a thousand times before we can get anywhere.

Well, I'm drunk and even I can see you're in the wrong: You ignored Xei's argument here.

I think I see the gap here...perhaps its similar to the fact that we know mass has gravity, we know its inherent, we know it works...but we dont know why mass has gravity, we just know it does. I remember reading one of the particles they are attempting to find is the particle that causes gravity in mass..but after that, it still begs the question how that particle produces gravity.

conciousness is very much the same in that sense. We know the brain has something to do with it, as reducing brain power in any of the ways xei described do indeed reduce conciousness in one form or another, very much the way taking away mass lowers gravitational force.

This is the way I see the argument going...so Im just going to say it is highly likely it is some sort of physical reaction, we just have discovered exactly how yet.

Originally Posted by Noogah

It is because you didn't even bother to aknowledge the argument. You never contradicted it. You just repeated your own views. Now if THAT isn't feeling superior, than I don't know what is.

Since I'm feeling THAT superior, I won't bother to respond to the rest of your post because I don't want to step on such a low level. I don't acknowledge your argument because it is:

A soul has to exist because a bunch of matter like silicon or neurons don't make consciousness because... Like think about it! It does not!

Very scientific, very logical. You win the Nobel prize.

Since we're discussing something for which we have no evidence (the soul) and therefore no reason to believe it exists; the burden of proof lies with those who suggest it does exist, namely you Noogah. You seem to have failed to provide this proof, therefore you fail and so does you so called theory.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Well, I'm drunk and even I can see you're in the wrong: You ignored Xei's argument here.

No you see, he's now claiming that actually he has answered my question previously.

So I asked him to link me to the post or quote it and he basically told me to fuck off.

Noogah, I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but you're completely delusional when it comes to you rating your own abilities and knowledge.

You believe you are not an idiot, and that you are well educated. Your ignorance on basic points readily demonstrates your lack of education, and your inability to comprehend the most basic logic demonstrates your lack of intelligence.

Time after time after time people stop you to point out these things, yet you are incapable of acknowledging them. People point out your ignorance, and where you're going wrong, and even then you cannot realise how little you know.

People point out the gaping holes in your logic, yet you cannot see them. You seem to believe you put forward a credible debate that others ignore, when in reality they've been debunked countless times before, and you fail to understand what a real debate is. You also fail to grasp simple arguments, and concepts that people of young ages and average intellect have mastered.

Anyone here can easily find examples of this, but there's basically no point in doing so, because even if we did, you are unable to acknowledge your own educational and intellectual incompetence. You fail to realise it the first time this is pointed out, so pointing these occasions out a second time is not going to make any difference. But if you really want an example, your old thread on Evolution is one. This thread is also an example.

Quite simply, you are too stupid to realise you are stupid. Your beliefs about yourself in these areas are so far removed from reality that they are laughable. You are a textbook case of the Dunning-Kruger effect, as described in this video.



Some seem to think that you just want to hold on to your existing beliefs. I personally don't believe this; I think you're just genuinely incapable of understanding alternatives, in the same way you're incapable of understanding or realising your limitations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Illusory superiority (also known as better-than-average effect) is a cognitive bias in which people overestimate the degree to which they possess desirable qualities, relative to others, or underestimate their negative qualities relative to others. It is one of a class of positive illusions. Whereas in optimism bias people overestimate the likelihood of favorable events happening to them, in illusory superiority people have inflated views of their own characteristics.

The effect has been found when people compare themselves to others on many different abilities and personality traits. Some surveys have found all, or nearly all, the participants rating themselves as above the group average. This has been named the Lake Wobegon effect after Garrison Keillor's fictional town where "all the children are above average".

The strongest effect has been found when people rate themselves on abilities at which they are totally incompetent. These subjects have the greatest disparity between their actual performance (at the low end of the distribution) and their self-rating (placing themselves above average). This Dunning–Kruger effect is interpreted as a lack of metacognitive ability to recognise their own incompetence.

Originally Posted by Photlysis

Noogah, I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but you're completely delusional when it comes to you rating your own abilities and knowledge

I NEVER SAID I THOUGHT I WAS SUPERIOR!!!!!!

Get over your obsessive dillusions about me.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

You ignored Xei's argument here.

Because anybody can clearly see that my point was broader than that.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

A soul has to exist because a bunch of matter like silicon or neurons don't make consciousness because... Like think about it! It does not!

Wow Bonsay. Is that all you picked up?

Yep, I'm still here Noogah.

explain the logical argument behind why the brain can't cause consciousness

explain the logical argument behind why the brain can't cause consciousness

explain the logical argument behind why the brain can't cause consciousness

It's not going to just disappear if you ignore it. This is how reality works.

Originally Posted by Noogah

Wow Bonsay. Is that all you picked up?

Wow Noogah. Yes that's all I picked up.

I haven't seen a single shred of proof to support your claim that consciousness can't emerge from the brain or a computer, or your claim that souls exist. All you keep saying is "think about it, it's inconceivable, it's impossible, it's illogical..." Why is it? I still don't know why it's all that. Can you please quote yourself where this is revealed. If it's true that you've already said it.

Everyone is getting really bitchy in this thread. Yes, Noogah is of average intelligence and probably pretty young. If you can't speak civilly to people of average intelligence, you'd better prepare to A) join a university faculty B) get your ass kicked, frequently or C) all of the above.

Also, most of you are making as simplistic and reactionary an argument as Noogah's by insisting that consciousness is exclusive to and originates in the brain. You're showing a bias particular to our historical epoch, with our mechanistic paradigm for existence, and essentially preserving mind/body duality, declaring that consciousness exists independent of 98% of the body. Yes, the brain carries out the grunt work of cognition, but subjective experience, the quality of being present, is shaped by and relies upon all body systems as well as the environment and society.

We also cannot discount the possibility that there is an experiential component to the existence of a flatworm or a spruce, nor that we are or can be elements of larger, variably self-aware entities, however different from our anthropocentric notions of what it means to be conscious.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Everyone is getting really bitchy in this thread. Yes, Noogah is of average intelligence and probably pretty young. If you can't speak civilly to people of average intelligence, you'd better prepare to A) join a university faculty B) get your ass kicked, frequently or C) all of the above.

best.summary.evar!!!!

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Also, most of you are making as simplistic and reactionary an argument as Noogah's by insisting that consciousness is exclusive to and originates in the brain.

What else can we do. Without making an assertion and thus having a certain bias in a debate, how do you intend to come to a conclusion on any matter?