Thread: CS Lewis

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

Yes. Although I know you'd never accept such a thing.

No, I'm afraid that I would not.

LOGIC says that we are both the same. A doorknob is a lump of matter, a human body is a lump of matter. No matter how "complex" (and who's to say what is complex and what is not?) one is, it is not capable of becoming conscious.

When do you draw the boundary between human body and doorknob? When does one cease to be dead, and become alive?

Originally Posted by Noogah

No, I'm afraid that I would not.

LOGIC says that we are both the same. A doorknob is a lump of matter, a human body is a lump of matter. No matter how "complex" (and who's to say what is complex and what is not?) one is, it is not capable of becoming conscious.

As Xei said: Water is wet. Water is made of atoms. So is a doorknob. Never knew doorknobs are wet.

How is this logic?

We know one is capable of becoming conscious. If you haven't noticed, it has a strict definition which we can obviously detect.

Originally Posted by Noogah

When do you draw the boundary between human body and doorknob? When does one cease to be dead, and become alive?

Don't you understand that the thing we call life is a complex set of interactions between matter?

And before you say what's complex... in this case a large number of various chemical reactions and interactions.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

We know one is capable of becoming conscious. If you haven't noticed, it has a strict definition which we can obviously detect.


Don't you understand that the thing we call life is a complex set of interactions between matter?

And before you say what's complex... in this case a large number of various chemical reactions and interactions.

Yes, we do know that we become conscious. The debate is, why are we conscious? You seem to believe that we are conscious because our body is full of chemical reactions. I believe that the latter makes no sense, and that consciousness is due to the possession of, or as C.S Lewis said, being a soul.

SO what you are saying is that complexity is judged by the amount of chemical reactions something has?

I don't know why we are conscious or what it means. All I know is that science points to it being an emergent property of the functioning brain. You're the one asserting that there is a soul and that consciousness can't emerge by itself. How you know this, I have no idea. Maybe you're god?


I'm saying that complexity is judged by our understanding of some phenomena. If we make some super quantum computer which gives us a valid simulation of everything that's going on in the human body, the word complexity as you use it here wouldn't mean much more, would it?

Originally Posted by Noogah

Yes, we do know that we become conscious. The debate is, why are we conscious? You seem to believe that we are conscious because our body is full of chemical reactions. I believe that the latter makes no sense, and that consciousness is due to the possession of, or as C.S Lewis said, being a soul.

Oh my you know nothing about complex systems. How do you suppose Neural Networks are able to predict sequences of information 'intelligently'? A watered down version of a soul? Or a watered down version of the same principals at work in your brain?

SO what you are saying is that complexity is judged by the amount of chemical reactions something has?

Complexity is measured in the amount of non-redundant, active systems within a given system. At least, that's how I would measure it. It is still pretty arbitrary. Including a soul in the picture just makes a bad painting worse by like, setting the canvas on fire. We know how the brain works to a good extent, and we know that it is all of the neurons working together that allow us to 'experience' ourselves.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

How you know this, I have no idea.

Common sense!! I don't care how "complex" something is. It can have fifty times the chemical reactions per second than there have been sands on the ocean in the worlds history for all I care. Physical matter cannot bring forth something so complex as consciousness, which is not physical. Consciousness is not made of atoms, molecules, or any form of physical matter concievable. I don't care how many electronic connections are made between neurons, this brings forth thought. Ambient things can think. A computer can "think". It cannot be conscious.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

the word complexity as you use it here wouldn't mean much more, would it?

I don't recall using the word.

Originally Posted by A roxxor

How do you suppose Neural Networks are able to predict sequences of information 'intelligently'?

I believe you know the [vague] answer to that question. We are not discussing how we "think". We are discussing the origins of a conciouss human being.

Originally Posted by A roxxor

A watered down version of a soul?

More like a soupped up version of a computer.

Originally Posted by A roxxor

and we know that it is all of the neurons working together that allow us to 'experience' ourselves.

Don't kid yourself (or me). It isn't verry funny.

If we 'knew' that neurons provided conciousness, we would not be debating here. There is no evidence for your claim.

None.

Zilch.

Nada.

Zero.

Originally Posted by Noogah

Common sense!! I don't care how "complex" something is. It can have fifty times the chemical reactions per second than there have been sands on the ocean in the worlds history for all I care. Physical matter cannot bring forth something so complex as consciousness, which is not physical. Consciousness is not made of atoms, molecules, or any form of physical matter concievable. I don't care how many electronic connections are made between neurons, this brings forth thought. Ambient things can think. A computer can "think". It cannot be conscious.

Common sense? More like baseless assumptions brought forth by religious indoctrination.

Noogah, it is quite clear that the only reason you believe what you believe, is because you see no other explenation. We've seen similar reactions all the way throughout history, not just in connection with religion, but also much simpler things. For example, back when we were not aware of the existence of America, people assumed that there would be seamonsters swimming around out there.
Sure, you can say that this is different, but it is only a matter of time before we figure out what exactly is going on inside our brains, and when that time comes, will you stay in denial? What if we actually managed to simulate or construct a neural network, and we made it act just like a human being? I'm not talking about a scripted robot here, but a robot that has been trained from a state of infancy, into a conversational partner who can reflect and debate things, just like we can.
If and when we manage to do this, what will you do?

Originally Posted by Noogah

Common sense!! I don't care how "complex" something is. It can have fifty times the chemical reactions per second than there have been sands on the ocean in the worlds history for all I care. Physical matter cannot bring forth something so complex as consciousness, which is not physical. Consciousness is not made of atoms, molecules, or any form of physical matter concievable. I don't care how many electronic connections are made between neurons, this brings forth thought. Ambient things can think. A computer can "think". It cannot be conscious.

That is baseless and I see absolutely no reason why simulating a brain would no display this behavior. No, consciousness is NOT physical. But then, neither are economies, or computer applications. They are the abstractions of physical phenomenon.

I believe you know the [vague] answer to that question. We are not discussing how we "think". We are discussing the origins of a conciouss human being.

Consciousness is the result of thinking you idiot.

More like a soupped up version of a computer.

So a computer doesn't need a soul to become conscious, but humans do? God fails so much he has to force consciousness to exist while man can watch it form?

Don't kid yourself (or me). It isn't verry funny.

If we 'knew' that neurons provided conciousness, we would not be debating here. There is no evidence for your claim.

Noogah, you are the guy who doesn't accept thousands of scientific facts on the basis of personal incredulity. It is hardly surprising to me that you cannot reason at all when it comes to consciousness either.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Including a soul in the picture just makes a bad painting worse by like, setting the canvas on fire.

I never knew you were a poet!

For God's sake, I already pointed out the glaring fallacy in

"Thing X is A and thing Y is A therefore if thing Y is B then thing X is B".

My soul is non-physical, poetry is non-physical, poetry can't be conscious, therefore my soul can't be conscious.

It doesn't logically work and it takes the intellect of a ten year old to see that it doesn't work.

^

huh... you two beat me to it <_<

Why did thing instantly get turned into a debate about souls? Why couldn't you have just made a thread about CS Lewis and left it at that?

Originally Posted by Noogah

No, I'm afraid that I would not.

LOGIC says that we are both the same. A doorknob is a lump of matter, a human body is a lump of matter. No matter how "complex" (and who's to say what is complex and what is not?) one is, it is not capable of becoming conscious.

That is because it does not contain a neural network, which is the source of 'consciousness'. If you take a neural network and feed it constant information much in the way that a human neural network receives information (Distinguishing different external stimuli such as light, audio, etc) and let it grade itself, it will eventually be able to distinguish itself from its environment in a way that can only be described as conscious. It's just a matter of the hardware.

Soul is not required.

Originally Posted by Noogah

When do you draw the boundary between human body and doorknob? When does one cease to be dead, and become alive?

The boundary is in their composition. A doorknob and a human body are clearly two separate structures and should be treated as such. This is why a wrench and a computer keyboard are different... And neither of those are alive...

Life is any system that can actively reproduce independently in my opinion. Doorknobs cannot and are thus not alive. Also, you are aware of course that human beings are made up of cells, which reproduce themselves, right...? You are the sum of your parts. Soul is not required.

Originally Posted by Noogah

No, I'm afraid that I would not.

LOGIC says that we are both the same. A doorknob is a lump of matter, a human body is a lump of matter. No matter how "complex" (and who's to say what is complex and what is not?) one is, it is not capable of becoming conscious.

When do you draw the boundary between human body and doorknob? When does one cease to be dead, and become alive?

You get stupider by the day.

Originally Posted by Marvo

Staying in this debate is ultimately pointless, since you don't seem particularly intelligent

Originally Posted by Marvo

I do not understanding how anybody can be so willfully ignorant.

Both of these are baseless accusations. I would very much appreciate it if you would explain yourself before insulting.

Originally Posted by Marvo

you're just arguing the same thing over and over again

I am on this thread anyways, yes. I would stop, were my arguments rendered useless. I have found that, so far at least, they have gone undebunked and unrivaled. Until they are, I will continue to use them.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Saying that's a computer application is like saying that consciousness is a bunch of connections on a network of cells being run by electric patterns, all of which are physical.

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.

Originally Posted by imran p

You get stupider by the day.

I would like you to explain yourself.

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.