Thread: How are we not a computer?

I am sorry if this seems way off topic. I'm afraid there is a persistent problem if this topic is restricted to science, however I no longer see why I should keep posting more after this anyway. I think there is more weight on this toward Philosophy.

Fundamentally, you three are simply arguing that you see no reason why consciousness is not a product, or not an emergent property of the brain. Also, this leads to the optimism in that there's no reason why it cannot be produced in the future. It's surprising that people don't fully consider a radical paradigm difference, which I have surely explained already. But let me point some more things out.

First of all, essentially: What do we mean by 'consciousness'?

1. To know of existence; to have the subjective capacity for awareness.
2. To think or to perceive.

Please note I am using definition 1 and not 2. What some of you seem to be saying is 2, but 2 is contextualized by 1. Thus, while you can point to 2, you cannot prove 1, but 1 exists by authority in order for 2 to exist or not.

It follows from definition 1 that consciousness is intrinsic to life and sentience, because it is inseparable from being alive. For what is 'being alive' without knowing existence, or even being aware of that knowledge? We say it is inert and lifeless. Simple enough. Therefore, consciousness is one and the same with the nature of life; subjective and intangible. There is no denying the innate authority of subjectivity. Any objective reality falls within it, but none exist without it.

The implications of this are very radical. Consciousness becomes subject to no limitation. It is not subject to time or space. I don't want people to pretend I said nothing about consciousness being a different paradigm, because that is a key point that needs attention.

With consciousness there is the capacity for meaning, integrity, love and several other phenomena that are intangible; that cannot be proven, yet without them not even science is important. That is why science can't really do much with consciousness in itself. Science might even say that meaning is an emergent property of art. Is that not ridiculous? Art is created from the capacity for meaning and expression. Science may also infer that the capacity for awareness arises from material. That is also ridiculous! What we're dealing with here is of a completely different paradigm and the naive person mixes categories. Consciousness is not gas, liquid or solid and neither is it detectable, because it is within everything.

Life and consciousness as the same substrate cannot be created or destroyed. You can neither create nor destroy consciousness, or create it from what you could call inert dust. If anything you could say it happens in reverse. Consciousness is a prevailing, indestructible source of intelligence that has manifested the whole universe, alive or not. You can destroy lifeforms, yet even what is not living arguably has 'life' in varying degrees.

Look in your backyard or on television and you can witness evolution. Things are always changing form, but the aesthetics of all life forms doesn't occur by causality, but by the prevailing potentiality of consciousness that accounts for everything in the universe. Certain manifestations or likelihood's are emphasized by what are known as attractor fields, which are invisible patterns. Unless you are sensitive to aesthetics and the intelligence that is innate to all living and non-living forms around you, in all their varying degrees and expressions, you might just speculate that this was all some huge 'accident.' A little ludicrous might I add.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Mental activity... What else could it be? If I take the experience of reality as factual, then that's what science tells us. I think that people have some sort of aversion to cold hard material reality because they instinctively separate themselves from nature. In my eyes reality isn't "Just some depressing random atoms and stuff" - as some religious people like to characterise the rest of the universe. It is the totality of existence, which includes me by the way, and I see no reason to lower it or heighten it's relevance relative to me. So to me there is nothing shallow about being an emergent property of this mysterious universe.

It is shallow because it can be seen as a rather quick and pedestrian conclusion. Our brains can be looked at to be what we have in common, but there are also endless specifics that are unique to our inheritance and conditioning. You might say that even our bodies are essentially the same, however neither of these are causing consciousness; consciousness exists first. A person can even have part of their brain removed and still have the same underlying consciousness as everybody else, because it what is beneath the mental activity; what is beyond the brain, that makes us all essentially the same. It is the capacity to experience. The brain is the central mechanism for the senses and the body, but this is concerning what is beyond them.

Originally Posted by Xei

Functioning brains patently give rise to consciousness. It is also obvious that the material which constitutes said brain is irrelevant, as the contrary position is equivalent to the position that carbon can be conscious whereas silicon cannot, or indeed that the number 6 (protons) can be conscious whereas the number 14 (protons) cannot.

Why do you think brains aren't made out of silicon then? If you ask me, consciousness provides gradations within all particles, whatever size they are. The only difference is the degree to which the said particles have the potential to manifest into greater structures, in this case what we'd refer to as a human being. As you can see the process of evolution happened on its own, it didn't need somebody there to build it.

You guys also need to expand on why 'creating a conscious being' doesn't present the problem of it being dead. Saying life is just 'chemical reactions' is like a sophomoric description and if anything, actually indicates that consciousness isn't an emergent property at all, since 'chemical reactions' provides no distinctions anywhere in space or time.

So here's my conclusions. If consciousness was an emergent property:

• "Emerging" cannot occur. Emerging is consequent to the field of consciousness, which is perpetually interacting with matter and energy.
• The universe would not have come into manifestation. I.e. not even evolution can occur. Because all processes do not happen by magic or by accident. They are bound in the field of consciousness.
• Supposing the above were not true; let's say life can be created. This is contradictory, because if consciousness is an emergent property then there's no reason in ordinary life why it should be destroyed. On the contrary, it is because life cannot be created that it cannot be destroyed. Besides, none of us have actually experienced physical death this lifetime, so all conclusions in regard to life being forced to a permanent end is speculation. This is essentially no different than speculating that consciousness can be created.

I think my overall conclusion is already obvious enough. Most of what I've said is not provable, however it is indeed verifiable. It only takes a paradigm shift from Science & Mathematics to more abstract, philosophical and spiritual views.

Originally Posted by really

I am sorry if this seems way off topic. I'm afraid there is a persistent problem if this topic is restricted to science, however I no longer see why I should keep posting more after this anyway. I think there is more weight on this toward Philosophy.

Fundamentally, you three are simply arguing that you see no reason why consciousness is not a product, or not an emergent property of the brain. Also, this leads to the optimism in that there's no reason why it cannot be produced in the future. It's surprising that people don't fully consider a radical paradigm difference, which I have surely explained already. But let me point some more things out.

First of all, essentially: What do we mean by 'consciousness'?

1. To know of existence; to have the subjective capacity for awareness.
2. To think or to perceive.

Please note I am using definition 1 and not 2. What some of you seem to be saying is 2, but 2 is contextualized by 1. Thus, while you can point to 2, you cannot prove 1, but 1 exists by authority in order for 2 to exist or not.

It follows from definition 1 that consciousness is intrinsic to life and sentience, because it is inseparable from being alive. For what is 'being alive' without knowing existence, or even being aware of that knowledge? We say it is inert and lifeless. Simple enough. Therefore, consciousness is one and the same with the nature of life; subjective and intangible. There is no denying the innate authority of subjectivity. Any objective reality falls within it, but none exist without it.

The implications of this are very radical. Consciousness becomes subject to no limitation. It is not subject to time or space. I don't want people to pretend I said nothing about consciousness being a different paradigm, because that is a key point that needs attention.

With consciousness there is the capacity for meaning, integrity, love and several other phenomena that are intangible; that cannot be proven, yet without them not even science is important. That is why science can't really do much with consciousness in itself. Science might even say that meaning is an emergent property of art. Is that not ridiculous? Art is created from the capacity for meaning and expression. Science may also infer that the capacity for awareness arises from material. That is also ridiculous! What we're dealing with here is of a completely different paradigm and the naive person mixes categories. Consciousness is not gas, liquid or solid and neither is it detectable, because it is within everything.

Life and consciousness as the same substrate cannot be created or destroyed. You can neither create nor destroy consciousness, or create it from what you could call inert dust. If anything you could say it happens in reverse. Consciousness is a prevailing, indestructible source of intelligence that has manifested the whole universe, alive or not. You can destroy lifeforms, yet even what is not living arguably has 'life' in varying degrees.

Look in your backyard or on television and you can witness evolution. Things are always changing form, but the aesthetics of all life forms doesn't occur by causality, but by the prevailing potentiality of consciousness that accounts for everything in the universe. Certain manifestations or likelihood's are emphasized by what are known as attractor fields, which are invisible patterns. Unless you are sensitive to aesthetics and the intelligence that is innate to all living and non-living forms around you, in all their varying degrees and expressions, you might just speculate that this was all some huge 'accident.' A little ludicrous might I add.



It is shallow because it can be seen as a rather quick and pedestrian conclusion. Our brains can be looked at to be what we have in common, but there are also endless specifics that are unique to our inheritance and conditioning. You might say that even our bodies are essentially the same, however neither of these are causing consciousness; consciousness exists first. A person can even have part of their brain removed and still have the same underlying consciousness as everybody else, because it what is beneath the mental activity; what is beyond the brain, that makes us all essentially the same. It is the capacity to experience. The brain is the central mechanism for the senses and the body, but this is concerning what is beyond them.



Why do you think brains aren't made out of silicon then? If you ask me, consciousness provides gradations within all particles, whatever size they are. The only difference is the degree to which the said particles have the potential to manifest into greater structures, in this case what we'd refer to as a human being. As you can see the process of evolution happened on its own, it didn't need somebody there to build it.

You guys also need to expand on why 'creating a conscious being' doesn't present the problem of it being dead. Saying life is just 'chemical reactions' is like a sophomoric description and if anything, actually indicates that consciousness isn't an emergent property at all, since 'chemical reactions' provides no distinctions anywhere in space or time.

So here's my conclusions. If consciousness was an emergent property:

• "Emerging" cannot occur. Emerging is consequent to the field of consciousness, which is perpetually interacting with matter and energy.
• The universe would not have come into manifestation. I.e. not even evolution can occur. Because all processes do not happen by magic or by accident. They are bound in the field of consciousness.
• Supposing the above were not true; let's say life can be created. This is contradictory, because if consciousness is an emergent property then there's no reason in ordinary life why it should be destroyed. On the contrary, it is because life cannot be created that it cannot be destroyed. Besides, none of us have actually experienced physical death this lifetime, so all conclusions in regard to life being forced to a permanent end is speculation. This is essentially no different than speculating that consciousness can be created.

I think my overall conclusion is already obvious enough. Most of what I've said is not provable, however it is indeed verifiable. It only takes a paradigm shift from Science & Mathematics to more abstract, philosophical and spiritual views.

I cannot destroy consciousness? By what standard? Wouldn't giving someone a lobotomy or making them into a vegetable be destroying consciousness?
This isn't thermodynamics.
Did you know that primates, monkeys, chimps, humans etc. are the only animals on the planet, as far as we know, that are capable of abstract thought? They/we think in images and concepts. Other animals just kind of process information. Considering one's purpose and the meaning of life well, to me, that seems pretty abstract. I highly doubt a rabbit spends much time questioning it's place in the wheel of life. But then you are saying that all particles understand their purpose on some subtle, cosmic, deterministic scale, aren't you?

I understand being inable to believe this was just an accident. I agree with you, (not because of the complexity of the most advanced life forms, but of the simple ones.) However, going from- life is not an accident to obviously, this means all particles have what seems to be a lot like a soul is a pretty big logical jump. And the assertation that all particles have consciousness kind of destroy's the whole meaning of the word, anyway. Because whether or not an amino acid has a fundamental place in the order of the universe, an amino acid doesn't know that it is an amino acid. At least, there is no reason to believe so.

Originally Posted by really

You guys also need to expand on why 'creating a conscious being' doesn't present the problem of it being dead. Saying life is just 'chemical reactions' is like a sophomoric description and if anything, actually indicates that consciousness isn't an emergent property at all, since 'chemical reactions' provides no distinctions anywhere in space or time.

I claim that life IS nothing but chemical reactions. Do you have anything to show that it is anything else? A series of self-sustaining chemical reactions. Interactions between particles at the quantum level. Nothing more. We have found no chi, no life force, nothing of particular interest except...chemical reactions and processes.