全 164 件のコメント

[–]segFault11235 6ポイント7ポイント  (27子コメント)

I present the OR-theory of consciousness, the relevant body of scientific work, and, pardon my language here, the fucking idea that bifurcated spacetime distortions are utilized in our consciousnesses processes.

"scientific". Look, this article is so poorly constructed I don't even know where to begin, and I'm not even a physicist or a neuroscientist. For instance, what is a "Quantum vibration"? That was never defined.

I am not a biologist, but I have a decent idea that even if quantum vibrations are a thing, their scale is so minute compared to the width of a neuron's microtubule as to render it worthless.

I don't see how a nondeterministic system adds anything to the credence of consciousness that a deterministic one would not.

Lastly, it sounds like this is all a bunch of wooey spooky stuff all trying to be clusterfucked together. It'd do you good to go out there and learn for yourself the basics of quantum mechanics, biology, and neuroscience/consciousness.

WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT CONSCIOUSNESS REALLY IS.

What do you mean by this? We know, for instance, theistic or not, that consciousness is at least, in part, related to brain activity. We know that certain states of the brain affect this consciousness. We further know that brain damage can reduce consciousness. Everything seems to imply that consciousness is wholly defined by brain activity.

So where do you leap from that to ID?

[–]kratie123 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, I agree. Without definition of what the terms are, the debate will turn out to be ill-tuned. We won't be debating the essence but the definitions of what exactly we would be taking about. So, the very first step must always be to clearly state the definitions and have develop a consensus about them.

[–]khaste 14ポイント15ポイント  (19子コメント)

As far as I can tell, based on the horizon of scientific knowledge on the topic of consciousness, that intelligent design to some extent must be considered as a plausible hypothesis.

Just because we dont yet understand the concept of consciousness 100 %, doesnt give intelligent design/ concept of god any more credibillity.

[–]Stargrunt[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (18子コメント)

But that's just what I'm saying, we DO understand a bit about consciousness. What I am saying is there is a legitimate possibility that some kind of underlying 'proto-consciousness' exists in the fabric of the universe itself. I dunno, think the Tao not seven deadly sins I guess.

[–]PoppinJ 6ポイント7ポイント  (10子コメント)

I think it confuses the discussion/debate to conflate Christian Intelligent Design with the Tao.

[–]Stargrunt[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think it confuses the discussion to fail to realize the similarities.

[–]Stargrunt[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (8子コメント)

I have to say I never supported a 'Christian' intelligent design. That would be absurd.

[–]PoppinJ 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

My ignorance, I guess. I've never heard of anybody but Christians use the term Intelligent Design.

[–]Stargrunt[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (6子コメント)

Neither have I to be honest. To be fair, this review is from 2014, so it's brand new information. There's bound to be some friction introducing the concepts to the general public.

Never forget that the man who suggested surgeons wash their hands before digging around in people was laughed out of medicine.

[–]PoppinJ 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

So what Intelligent Design is being discussed here? And how is it comparable with Tao?

Also, there is nothing in the article that even begins to reference ID. I'm not sure who you're drawing a parallel with "the man who suggested surgeons wash their hands".

[–]Stargrunt[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

Historical anecdote I can't cite right now, never mind.

The point is that this discussion is ultimately a framing of the question of intelligent design as one of failure from inception, as we lack operable terms for intelligent that adequately describe the situation.

So the question asked by 'intelligent design' is wrong. A more apt way to frame the question would be 'by what logic does this system design itself' or something like that.

[–]PoppinJ 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

A more apt way to frame the question would be 'by what logic does this system design itself' or something like that.

That is an interesting question. I'm not sure that the system designs itself, or that there's any logic involved.

[–]Stargrunt[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Well then what 'designs' it, or how would you define the parameters if not as 'logic'?

[–]pyrespirit 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

What I am saying is there is a legitimate possibility that some kind of underlying 'proto-consciousness' exists in the fabric of the universe itself

No, there really isn't.

Nothing like that has ever been demonstrated.

[–]Stargrunt[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Nothing like 'consciousness' has ever been demonstrated either. Not in a purely objective sense.

[–]pyrespirit 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is completely false.

Consciousness has been conclusively demonstrated in brain imaging, and in medical science where people have had destruction or damage of the brain leading to radical personality changes.

[–]Stargrunt[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is absurd. Thought processes are not consciousness. There are plenty of examples of this, you clearly have not read a single source on the subject.

[–]lannister80 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

What I am saying is there is a legitimate possibility that some kind of underlying 'proto-consciousness' exists in the fabric of the universe itself.

Yes, and maybe an invisible pink unicorn lives in my garage. You never know, it's possible!

[–]Stargrunt[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Are we talking about a quantum pink unicorn? Because then it both exists and doesn't exist unless it's being observed right? So during every moment shorter than a plank length that unicorn indeed does exist.

[–]miashaee 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

How the hell did you come to that conclusion? Sounds like nonsense to me.

[–]-Ecce_Homo- 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

Here is the Wikipedia page on the Orchestrated objective reduction model of consciousness. It explains the whole model and various criticisms quite well.

[–]afkpuezo 6ポイント7ポイント  (24子コメント)

Even if it was possible that there could be some kind of space time consciousness, why would that then lead you to believe that a god actually existed?

[–]segFault11235 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think he conveniently defined god to be an intelligent alien race or grandiose machine or something of the like. You know, entirely speculative.

[–]MountainsOfMiami 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT CONSCIOUSNESS REALLY IS.

Therefore, God.

Does that work?

IMHO, no.

[–]Stargrunt[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is that what you got out of those scientific documents? God? Sorry about that.

[–]ajkavanagh 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hmm, the wiki page suggests that there are major problems with this hypothesis, so it is not, in any sense, and accepted view of how the brain might work. Thus to suggest that this 'theory' demands recognition is fallacious, and jumping the gun somewhat. There are many objections; it's a hypothesis, not a theory, and it has no peer reviewed supporting evidence.

However, even if you accept the premise that QM collapse is orchestrated in the brain, it's a monumental jump to suggest that the the QM 'foam' itself is conscious. All it would suggest is that the neurons, themselves, have a QM component in their functioning and that consciousness itself is still (most likely) an emergent property from the aggregation of the functioning of billions of neurons. It's still firmly seated in the interactions of the neurons; there would be no consciousness outside of the brain.

As a corollary, QM interactions are demonstrated in the plant cells that appears to assist in photosynthesis. Are we to infer than plant cells exhibit consciousness because there is QM weirdness?

[–]0hypothesis 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

If it's a plausible hypothesis, how can it be falsified?

[–]potzdamn 4ポイント5ポイント  (23子コメント)

Am i the only person who sees the word "quantum" and immediately feels like the discussion is above me?

[–]-Ecce_Homo- 9ポイント10ポイント  (4子コメント)

I majored in physics and I still don't understand that shit!

[–]potzdamn 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

I just remenber watching a debate roundtable featuring Michael Shermer and Deepak Chopra. Chopra kept saying all these things like "quantum soup" and Shermer kept calling it "woo woo.". Then, way later, some guy stands up during the Q&A and asks Chopra a question about where he studied science. Apparently this dude was a big time scientist who worked with Hawkings and actually knew his stuff, and the whole thing got really awkward. Thr scientist embarrassed Chopra and then Chopra took a verbal shot at the scientist.

Ever since then I decided that I just don't have the balls to pretend that discussing metaphysics and quantum theory is even reasonable. Everytime I see some user on here starting to talk about this stuff, I just figure it's a lost cause.

If there was some sort of amazing scientifiic validation for god, I figure William Lane Craig woulda learned it, bottled it and figured out how to sell it. The chances that any deeply scientific discussion is gonna take place on reddit, and totally change things, is close to nil.

[–]-Ecce_Homo- 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Ever since then I decided that I just don't have the balls to pretend that discussing metaphysics and quantum theory is even reasonable.

Do you mean together or separately? We can certainly talk about metaphysics and quantum theory, but the connection is unclear in my book.

[–]potzdamn 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Seperately. Or together. Anytime. I'm dumb.

[–]pyrespirit 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Anybody who claims to understand quantum mechanics doesn't understand quantum mechanics!

[–]Doomdoomkittydoom 2ポイント3ポイント  (7子コメント)

bifurcated spacetime distortions

Word salad, I'd bet.

[–]Stargrunt[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

I won't dispute that it is a mouthful of confusing. But I suppose that is my ultimate point.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11349432/

[–]Doomdoomkittydoom 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

bifurcated spacetime distortions

I don't find that in the article you just linked. However, from what I've read today on Penrose's theories, I can parse "bifurcated space time" as a reference to the Penrose interpretation of QM by way of the explanation by Tim Folger quoted on the Penrose interpretation wiki page,

In Einstein's theory, any object that has mass causes a warp in the structure of space and time around it. This warping produces the effect we experience as gravity. Penrose points out that tiny objects, such as dust specks, atoms and electrons, produce space-time warps as well. Ignoring these warps is where most physicists go awry. If a dust speck is in two locations at the same time, each one should create its own distortions in space-time...

With this interpretation of how wave function collapse works, Perrose Orch-OR wants to introduce a quantum computing component to the workings of the brain.

Now IFF the Penrose interpretation is correct and IFF there is a quantum computational element to the brain, then we may ask what function that quantum process has, and then we get a fuzzier territory wherein woo seems to blossom. For example, this form the wiki article,

Altogether, it proposes that when condensates in the brain undergo an objective reduction of their wave function, their collapse connects non-computational decision making to experiences embedded in the fundamental geometry of spacetime.

LOL, what? Is Orch-OR dependent on what seems to be psychic-residue? Can someone point to the discovery of "experiences embedded in the fundamental geometry of spacetime"?

The usually desire for the introduction of a quantum mechanical element is to account for freewill, though I don't see how the introduction of a dice roll suddenly makes for a choice. Somewhere in their theory of Orch-OR there is, I assume, so additional function by which the outcome isn't random, even though the Penrose Interpretation reads to be deterministic.

Finally, what really sets off the alarm bells in all this, is it seems to be suffering from a bias that has plagued knowledge for centuries: The desperate, desperate, desperate need for humans to be singularly special. We cling to many examples even as our knowledge beats us with the truth time and time again, from the Earth as the center of a small universe, to anger of referring to humans as monkeys (or apes, or animals). What were are left with is the need for consciousness to be supernatural, and only ours, and the "real us." The real hard problem of consciousness is we are scared that the answer is mundane.

But all of that is a discussion about how the brain works, so how do you then extrapolate the existence of a god in any meaningful sense of the word from the brain as a quantum computer?

[–]Stargrunt[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

My point was ultimately that any speculation as to the intelligence or lack thereof of anything lacks the proper basis in scientific evidence.

[–]Doomdoomkittydoom 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's nonsense.

[–]Stargrunt[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

How so? Can you explain how and why intelligent processes or consciousness are unlikely to have emerged without a biological foundation?

Of course not, because you can't explain how they emerged with that biological foundation.

So we need to find the breaking point between these concepts.

[–]potzdamn 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's a spacetime distortion that furcates with both genders.

[–]jcooli09 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't understand how this implies the idea of a universal intelligence at all, let alone that the intelligence might actually design life forms.

I agree that ID must be treated as a valid hypothesis, but don't really see how it can be tested or used to predict real phenomena.

In the meantime, we have a valid hypothesis which has been tested over and over again and has led to predictions of actual documented phenomena.

It seems to me that the real question should be "how does the hypothesis ID better explain the reality that we observe?"

[–]Stargrunt[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I suppose my point is "how does ID differentiate from the current theory".

Yeah, I guess the fire of what I'm getting at, is what is the difference between a wholly alien and Unfathomable form of intelligence, and our reality.

[–]thelonelyward3 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

Quantum mechanics is like trying to imagine the vastness of space, you literally just can't. It's pointless our brains cannot even fathom it, and never will. You can fathom little parts of it, but never say you can even remotely fathom quantum mechanics.

[–]segFault11235 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

but never say you can even remotely fathom quantum mechanics.

What? I don't find considering various eigen states or quantum indeterminacy unfathomable. There's some pretty basic models to get your head around the concepts.

You should check out some iTunesU courses (free). They do a great job covering the basics and make it wholly learnable in a reasonable way (warning, some linear algebra is involved).

[–]thelonelyward3 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

This is the equivalent of understanding jupiter, and proclaiming you can understand space.

[–]segFault11235 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

This is the equivalent of understanding jupiter, and proclaiming you can understand space.

It is? Care to support that claim? What is lacking in our understanding? I'm not necessarily trying to be contrarian here, I've just never heard a physicist make the equivalence before.

[–]pyrespirit 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Eigenfunctions aren't really a part of quantum mechanics. They're part of differential calculus.

It just happens that they're very useful for describing quantum mechanical systems.

There are some pretty basic models used to help in understanding concepts, but the nature of the universe which drives those concepts is something the human mind really cannot grapple intuitively.

Our brains simply didn't evolve in the sort of environment necessary to thought about quantum mechanics - it occurs at a scale we've never seen and covers effects and phenomena which simply don't occur at the scale in which we live, so our brains have none of the tools and concepts to understand it.

[–]segFault11235 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Eigenfunctions aren't really a part of quantum mechanics. They're part of differential calculus. It just happens that they're very useful for describing quantum mechanical systems.

Right, so how does that not make them a part of quantum mechanics? In all physical models we use mathematics to represent it. That, to me, says it's relevant.

There are some pretty basic models used to help in understanding concepts, but the nature of the universe which drives those concepts is something the human mind really cannot grapple intuitively.

Ok, now I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you implying we don't know why we need to use eigenfunctions as opposed to classical models to model QM? Because that's just plainly false, and even I as a layman know that.

Our brains simply didn't evolve in the sort of environment necessary to thought about quantum mechanics - it occurs at a scale we've never seen and covers effects and phenomena which simply don't occur at the scale in which we live, so our brains have none of the tools and concepts to understand it.

So it sounds like you are saying that. That simply isn't true, so I'll continue where I left off above. The reason we use eigenfunctions is because the practical means by which we can observe quantum particulars necessitates that measurements be performed orthogonally, or else we lose accuracy in the data for both.

In most basic terms, it has to do with the fact that the narrower a light wave becomes, the greater its energy (and therefore momentum), but the wider it becomes, the less accurate our reading of position. When we wish to measure a quantum particle, the interaction with this volatile light wave makes the act of observing very messy.

[–]thelonelyward3 -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

You can fathom little parts of it, but never say you can even remotely fathom quantum mechanics.

[–]segFault11235 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

How does repeating yourself progress the conversation?

[–]thelonelyward3 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I quoted where I said you can fathom little parts of it, but cannot remotely fathom quantum mechanics, because you're saying check out itunes courses they cover the basics... which I already said is possible.

[–]superliminaldude 1ポイント2ポイント  (21子コメント)

As far as I can recall the Orch-OR theory has been shown to be false, and this article at a glance doesn't seem to deal with the criticism already in place.

Secondly, I'm not sure of the relevance to the topic at hand even if Orch-OR was shown to be true. If it was true it doesn't indicate a god or "creative design" any more than any other theory of consciousness within a naturalist framework.

[–]Stargrunt[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (20子コメント)

You are quite mistaken. It is not falsified in the slightest.

[–]superliminaldude 1ポイント2ポイント  (19子コメント)

At least parts of it certainly have (see Georgiev and there have been numerous other articles along similar lines) and this doesn't bode well for the theory as a whole. It's certainly not in the mainstream of consciousness studies, which gives us some idea of the credibility we should afford it.

I'm still interested in a response to the rest of my post. Even if Orch-OR was true, it seems to just give us a theory of consciousness that happens to include quantum phenomena. I fail to see anything like "creative design" being a consequence of it.

[–]Stargrunt[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (18子コメント)

Elsewhere in the discussion I address this as well, the idea is more that 'creative design' is no different from a design of an Unfathomable intelligence.

[–]superliminaldude 1ポイント2ポイント  (17子コメント)

Explain what you mean by "design of an Unfathomable intelligence" and how it's a consequence of Orch-OR.

[–]Stargrunt[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (16子コメント)

I mean a process of 'self aware' or self referential, computation. One which arises beyond the scope of our understanding.

This would relate to the interaction of quantum mechanics and our consciousness and how these things may or may not be related to one another. It's up in the air, we don't know.

[–]superliminaldude 0ポイント1ポイント  (15子コメント)

Ah, so this is just wild speculation on your part.

Edit: Small rant follows. This is indicative of the general problem with the public understanding of quantum mechanics. Orch-OR is a naturalistic theory. Granted, it's a bad naturalistic theory, but by virtue of attaching consciousness to quantum mechanics, it makes people like you feel free to launch into wild speculation that has zero justification from your point of reference. Non-physicists should be forbidden from talking about quantum mechanics. End rant.

[–]Stargrunt[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Nope. Wild speculation by other scientists who reviewed the theory, at best.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188?via%3Dihub

[–]superliminaldude 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The fact that the article has been cited by Deepak Chopra is good reason alone to dismiss it. Nevertheless, from the abstract it doesn't appear to substantiate what you're claiming. So either you're speculating wildly, or very poorly misrepresenting your sources.

[–]Stargrunt[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (12子コメント)

I respectfully disagree. I think 'people like be' are completely off your radar my friend. I'm honestly interested in the truth at the end of the day.

[–]superliminaldude 1ポイント2ポイント  (11子コメント)

I'm honestly interested in the truth at the end of the day.

As am I, but there's good reason to believe that our best means of finding such truth is through our institutional sciences and not heedless speculation.

[–]Stargrunt[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

I agree. My point is that speculating there is no 'intelligence' is as silly as the antithesis of that position considering the current evidence regarding the subject.

[–]hibbel 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ask yourself this:

  • Has ID any explanatory power?

  • Does it make any testable predictions that turn out to be true and cannot be explained more easily by evolution?

  • Evolution brilliantly explains a great number of findings, from DNA patters all the way to fossils. How does ID explain those findings better than Evolution does?

Look no further than that.

[–]Borealismeme 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Basically this is "I have no idea how magnets work! It might be god!"

There is nothing wrong with saying that you don't know how something works. That admission means you need more data and better models in order to comprehend how it works.

To postulate that some powerful entity created our consciousness (that we don't understand) by using a ridiculously slow, inefficient and cruel process like evolution, however isn't a sane explanation to "how does consciousness work". If indeed this were the case, than the intelligent designer chose a remarkably stupid method for design. To give an idea, merely selectively breeding (purposefully selecting which organisms with which traits reproduce) is at least three orders of magnitude faster than evolution is, yet the evidence overwhelmingly shows that evolution has not been selectively breeding us. An entity of crafting consciousness presumably can solve the far easier problem of genetic manipulation, which is essentially a linear (in terms of time frame) process. You craft an entity you want, and you grow it, 1 generation done.

While this doesn't discount the possibility of an intelligent designer, it does mean that such an entity is unlikely.

I present the OR-theory of consciousness, the relevant body of scientific work, and, pardon my language here, the fucking idea that bifurcated spacetime distortions are utilized in our consciousnesses processes.

Our nerves also use chemical reactions to produce electrical discharges. Geckos use quantum effects to adhere to surfaces as strongly as some glues. Biology is random, and sometimes that random process finds neat tricks of physics to exploit. If you're familiar with genetic algorithms for circuit design you'll know that such designs tend to make maximal use of weird physics (often producing circuits that have no readily discernible function, but that are required for nearby functional circuits to function).

Not only that, but those microtubules are present in less intelligent animals as well. While they may be a central requirement for consciousness, they aren't a central requirement for intelligence.

[–]TooManyInLitter 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I want to be able to write off "god" as a nonissue, but this theory demands the recognition that WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT CONSCIOUSNESS REALLY IS.

But that's just what I'm saying, we DO understand a bit about consciousness.

My point is ultimately that even in the world of falsifiable scientific theory, we have to accept that this sort of thing is very much a possibility.

The bold emphasis is mine.

An early shaman examines the motion of the sun against the backdrop of the sky and ponders the "How?" of what he sees. This shaman does understand a bit of the observed phenomenon (e.g., the procession of the path in the sky, the different rise/set times and locations, and duration of the day, as a function of season), but based upon the knowledge available at the time is ignorant of the underlying physicalistic properties of orbital mechanics and gravity. Upon pondering the issue, the shaman concludes that it is possible that the sun is a spirit or God that emits light and heat and that this spirit/God travels the sky daily on a chariot, or other steed. And because it is a conceptual possibility, the shaman, for lack of knowledge, concludes that such a possibility is sufficient to justify a position the the Sun is, indeed, a God that requires belief and worship - and, in this ignorance, a religion (and associated religious belief) is created.

The Hard Problem of Consciousness is, currently, hard (a mild pun intended :)) and while human knowledge does provide a bit of understanding concerning the emergence of the "I" from the human neurological system and fuzzy neural network, the complete path for the "I" is not yet known. Similar to cosmo-genesis and abiogenesis.

So while there is a possibility that a cognitive entity purposefully actualized the "I" (e.g., a possibility that "God did it") in order to support the transition of this conceptual possibility into a credible position, the claimant has the burden of proof, via credible evidence, and/or supportable argument that is free from logical fallacies and which can be shown to actually be linkable to this reality, to a level of significance (or level of reliability and confidence) above a threshold of an appeal to emotion [I use a level of significance above that of an appeal to emotion as a threshold for consideration - even though the consequences of the claims is extraordinary], to show that there is any credibility for a Creationism based possibility of consciousness:

  • A "God" (undefined) exists
  • God actualized, with cognitive purpose, the initiation of the formation of this space-time universe
  • God is both capable of, and has produced/continues to produce, actualization of events/effects/interactions/causations within this space-time universe -or - is non-intervening and actualized this universe with hard determinism
  • This God actualized with cognitive purpose and intent the "I" of humans
  • That a wholly materialistic/physicalistic mechanism is impossible to produce an "I" (required to support the implicit claim that "God is/was required or necessary" when a Creationist "God did it" claim is presented)

While OP's post does not necessary limit the scope of some "self referential emergent computational process" to the cognitive ability and "I" of humans, I have chosen to limit the scope of my response as I do not wish to debate any claims for the possibility that the entire universe consists of an emergent cognitive entity/thingy.

Stargrunt, until the burden of proof is credibly presented for the above claims, then the transition of a conceptual possibility to more than mere speculation/postulation of ID/Creationism is not supportable. I must continue to fail to reject the null hypothesis concerning Creationism/ID claims, including the transition of the agency of the Hard Problem of Consciousness to a "God" from conceptual speculation to credibility.

[–]anomalousBits 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

So ultimately, if any self referential emergent computational process could have arisen during or as a result of the big bang, that could be a "god"

So assuming that I'm a self referential emergent computational process that arose as a result of the big bang, does that make me a god?

I don't see anything in the theory that means that the universe can have a consciousness outside of a brain substrate.

[–]Stargrunt[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

That makes you a kind of God in relation to this 'universe' of an organism. Think about it, how does any one part of your body perceive the disembodied voice that you attribute to your thought? I find the analogy to be quite apt.

[–]anomalousBits 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

That makes you a kind of God in relation to this 'universe' of an organism. Think about it, how does any one part of your body perceive the disembodied voice that you attribute to your thought?

Perception is not disembodied. Neither is thought. While these processes are not completely understood, that doesn't mean we need to get all mystical about them.

I find the analogy to be quite apt.

In my opinion, only in the trivial sense that we created God in our own image. How do you find it apt?

[–]Stargrunt[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Disembodied meaning what exactly?

And the God I am conceptualizing is not in my own image.

[–]anomalousBits 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Disembodied meaning what exactly?

Perception and thoughts are not separated from the body. Otherwise our train of thought would not get obliterated by a stubbed toe or distracting sound. Our thoughts would work just the same, despite the body being starving, or under the influence of drugs, or tired, hungry, thirsty. But they are not the same. The state of the body affects our state of mind, so thoughts are not disembodied.

And the God I am conceptualizing is not in my own image.

Right, I asked "why do you find it apt" to get a better sense of what you are conceptualizing and why you think human consciousness is godlike.

[–]Stargrunt[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think you have a different idea of how thoughts and consciousness work than I do. A 'train of thought' isn't something I recognize as part of my self but rather a process that I may or may not be aware of. I presume there is such a line of thinking when I reach for each letter as I type, and that it could be measured in the brain, but that is not the experience I am having.

[–]Stargrunt[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

So I find it apt in the sense that 'God' is ineffable and unknowable, and so to our cellular structure is, presumably, our conscious attention. Perhaps that presumption is mistaken.

[–]anomalousBits 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

When you put it that way, I guess it is an apt analogy, and many theologians think of God in that way. I think the idea of dualism is important for theism. Personally I'm not a dualist (for reasons similar to what I posted above.) I'm not sure that Roger Penrose is either, although his quantum mind ideas do seem to lean in that direction somewhat.

Have you read The Emperor's New Mind by Penrose? He details most of these ideas in that book. I read it a long time ago, but I don't remember most of it.

[–]miashaee 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think you can justify what you're talking about. But if you can then go win your Nobel Prize, until then I don't care........

[–]Doomdoomkittydoom 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

As far as I can tell, based on the horizon of scientific knowledge on the topic of consciousness, that intelligent design to some extent must be considered as a plausible hypothesis... What I am saying is there is a legitimate possibility that some kind of underlying 'proto-consciousness' exists in the fabric of the universe itself.

What? How does this follow from anything we know? This hasn't been the trajectory of the understanding of consciousness for a century. No élan vital, no disembodied intelligences, no psychic powers, no cognative radiation, nothing that suggest consciousness is something in itself, but rather it is the actions of a complex neural networks, which has only been recognized to exist in nature by way of complex biochemistry which doesn't exist for much of space and time. It's got an on-off switch, it appears to reflect the decisions of the brain and not make them, it gets screwed up by recreational chemicals, etc.

As for the OR-theory, the math doesn't back it.

[–]Aquareon 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

The presence of fractals in living things is a dead giveaway that we're the result of procedural generation from simple starting conditions and simple rules (aka evolution) rather than manual engineering.

[–]Stargrunt[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

Couldn't fractals just be some flaw in our perception though? In the way we interpret the universe?

[–]Aquareon 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

The short answer is no. Fractals have significance in math and computing independently from human perception.

Anyway, isn't it more likely that intelligent design is a flawed interpretation of complexity in the universe? Assuming that because humans create complex things, that is the only possible origin for anything complicated?

[–]Stargrunt[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

But maths and computing don't exist outside of human perception. You are talking about theoretical constructions of the mind that we use to approximate reality. Unless fractals come into play in quantum mechanics?

[–]Aquareon 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

But maths and computing don't exist outside of human perception.

We disagree there. A computer can perform math and arrive at a correct conclusion, handing it off to a human observer who doesn't understand how to perform that operation. Even if the computer is not conscious, it is perceiving, processing, and solving the problem independently of the human's awareness or understanding of it.

You are talking about theoretical constructions of the mind that we use to approximate reality

Do you accept that we are our brains, or believe that consciousness is some sort of immaterial spirit essence? I want to figure out whether I'm wasting my time on this discussion before we continue.

[–]Stargrunt[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

But we program the computer with our perceptually founded logical systems. Of course it does what we tell it to, how could a tool do anything other than what it was designed to do?

I don't believe we are brains or not our brains. I think the whole question is presumptuous given the evidence. I find it absurd that anyone would try and say brains aren't related but as far as I'm aware exactly what 'we are' is unknown and so I remain agnostic to the concept. Perhaps 'we' are an awareness in the quantized spacetime distortions that resonate with the biological brains computations? how would that be contradictory with current theory?

I guess the short answer is 'mu'. That means 'the question is wrong'

[–]Aquareon 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't believe we are brains or not our brains.

I see. Invalid person. Good day.

[–][削除されました]  (3子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]Stargrunt[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

    What do you mean by 'God' ?

    [–]ShatteredThrone 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    You said the word first. :P So, NO U. I'm sorry my delete was late. I had just realized a minute after posting I didn't want this conversation.

    [–]Stargrunt[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Lol fair enough, thanks for the interest at least. 😬

    [–]hayshed 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    So quantum randomness may have a part to play in the functioning of neurons? So someone has found a "quantum magnifier", something that takes quantum effects and makes them casual on a macro-scale.

    So what? At best this lets humans have access to a truly random number generator.

    There's nothing that supports a turn around of theories of consciousness or evolution of the brain. There's just nothing here to support that jump.

    [–]19maddog74 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Religion at it's root has and always will stem from our lack of understanding of the natural world, from the time our most ancient ancestors worshipped the sun and moon. Ignorance has always been the house upon which religion is built, even as we learn and can rationally and scientifically explain more and more the argument of the faithful continues to hang onto the things we cannot yet explain. We may not know exactly what consciousness is or how it works, we likely won't in our lifetimes, maybe we'll never figure it out, none of this means there's anything devine, mystical or magical about it.

    [–]Stargrunt[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I'm not so sure.

    In not so sure our understanding of these ancient agrarian cultures is through enough to claim that they actually believed in these 'gods'. I'm talking about Sumerian and Babylonian and possibly even greek traditions.

    I'm not sure we can separate the idea of a 'God' and just the natural memes which the cultural identity built out from. For example, if we were an ancient culture would they not talk about the deity 'Santa clause' who has a ritual of small animal sacrifices around trees during Christmas? Or so they would decide from a few forgotten animals in boxes at maybe two dig sites.

    My point is, religion as a house of ignorance may have been born with the Catholic Church. You'll notice many eastern religions leave room for science as well.