Ghosts?

[_Blixa]

C'est Vrai Quasimodo! I believe this is entirely possible! Humans don't know jack crap about anything, but we are so arrogant that we think we know everything.

Thanks Simon!

The older I get, the more apparent it becomes that I don't KNOW anything.

I hope you don't believe that Quasi. I'm sure you do know many things, as does the rest of humanity. To claim humans don't know anything about anything is an anti-intellectualism about as vapid as it is profound. It is truly a dismal declaration.

[_Quasimodo]

I hope you don't believe that Quasi. I'm sure you do know many things, as does the rest of humanity. To claim humans don't know anything about anything is an anti-intellectualism about as vapid as it is profound. It is truly a dismal declaration.

I appreciate your thoughts Blixa! But, I really do find that the longer I ponder things, the more I realize that I don't "truly" understand them.

I could fill volumes with what I don't know.

Things that once seemed certain to me are all a question for me now. The upside is that it doesn't bother me much that I don't know.

Getting dumber as I age :).

[_MCB]

Getting humbler as I age :).

[_Quasimodo]

Getting humbler as I age :).

You're sweet, MCB! I'll try to think of myself as humble, rather than dumb.

[_Simon Belmont]

I hope you don't believe that Quasi. I'm sure you do know many things, as does the rest of humanity. To claim humans don't know anything about anything is an anti-intellectualism about as vapid as it is profound. It is truly a dismal declaration.

Oh it is not anti-intellectual. We have done remarkably well for ourselves over the centuries, starting out with zero knowledge and at least progressing to the point where we have a pretty good grasp on how our world works. That's all well and good, but when you contrast what we do know with what we do not, it is extremely humbling.

[_Tarski]

That's correct, because consciousness is not measured by these energies.

You are the one that said consciousness was energy remember?

I asked you before, what do you think energy is?
Hint: It isn't a form of complexity ( and consciousness is).
Energy is first and foremost a mathematical function on phase space that is constant along trajectories of systems with time invariant Lagrangians. In field theory it is better to talk about Lagrangian densities and local conservation laws. The fact that it is constant is behind its seeming power--but that is a longish explanation.



Consciousness isn't a magical fluid or gas and it is not energy either (it needs energy just like computation does). It is a description of a certain family complex abilities of organisms with sufficiently complex brains. -Tarski

Why do some things which exist in the universe develop this ability while others do not, since everything is made of the same subatomic particles?

Why do some things develop the ability to fly? What do some things have trunks to wash themselves with while others do not?
Oh but that is clearly explainable in physicalist terms you say?. Yep! Like I said, consciousness only seems to be something that radically transcends matter.
It doesn't anymore than information processing transcends matter (which it does in an innocent sense).


Also, it isn't a simple single ability--it just seems that way because we are not privy to its structure. It is also not unified or continuous. In fact, as it stands, consciousness is a sort of innate folk concept. The more we study it, the less it seems anything like a unified something resembling our animistic magical intuitions. Personally I think it is semi-fictional.

Tarski, I know you are a man of science, and that's noble and great, but how much do you really think we puny humans understand about the true nature of the universe and all of its citizens

I think we have a pretty good idea of the general nature of things but I am not as optimistic as say Steven Hawking who seems to think we have it nearly wrapped up.
But it doesn't matter. What primitives didn't know didn't justify their beliefs in witches and demons. In the same way, what we don't know doesn't justify our supernatural fantasies. As history shows us, what we learn to be the case will not in the least resemble our silly fantasies.

[_Simon Belmont]

That's correct, because consciousness is not measured by these energies.

You are the one that said consciousness was energy remember?

I was open to the idea. I asked Buffalo if that was his assertion, since he equated electrical impulses of the brain to consciousness

I asked you before, what do you think energy is?

Basically, its a measurement of work being performed by a force.

Energy is first and foremost a mathematical function on phase space that is constant along trajectories of systems with time invariant Lagrangians. In field theory it is better to talk about Lagrangian densities and local conservation laws. The fact that it is constant is behind its seeming power--but that is a longish explanation.

Yeah, that. I do not claim to know as much about the sciences as you do.

Why do some things which exist in the universe develop this ability while others do not, since everything is made of the same subatomic particles?

Why do some things develop the ability to fly? What do some things have trunks to wash themselves with while others do not?

It strongly indicates a designer, an organizing agent, or an unmoved mover. It does not, in my opinion, indicate random chance.

Oh but that is clearly explainable in physicalist terms you say?. Yep! Like I said, consciousness only seems to be something that radically transcends matter.
It doesn't anymore than information processing transcends matter (which it does in an innocent sense).

Also, it isn't a simple single ability--it just seems that way because we are not privy to its structure. It is also not unified or continuous. In fact, as it stands, consciousness is a sort of innate folk concept. The more we study it, the less it seems anything like a unified something resembling our animistic magical intuitions. Personally I think it is semi-fictional.

Have you read Chalmers? I'm sure you have. The hard problem of consciousness is subjective experience.

It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does. Emphasis Mine

He contrasts this "hard problem" with what he terms the "easy" problems of consciousness; those which can easily be explained by science:

The easy problems of consciousness are those that seem directly susceptible to the standard methods of cognitive science, whereby a phenomenon is explained in terms of computational or neural mechanisms.

• the ability to discriminate, categorize, and react to environmental stimuli;
• the integration of information by a cognitive system;
• the reportability of mental states;
• the ability of a system to access its own internal states;
• the focus of attention;
• the deliberate control of behavior;
• the difference between wakefulness and sleep.

It seems that what you are referring to in your position are these easy problems, while I am attempting to understand the hard problem.

I think we have a pretty good idea of the general nature of things but I am not as optimistic as say Steven Hawking who seems to think we have it nearly wrapped up.

Did Aristotle think he had a pretty good idea of the general nature of things? Did the medieval Islamic scientists? What we know now far surpasses what they knew, and there is no doubt that our future holds much more knowledge than we can ever dream of. I reject Hawking's idea that we have it nearly wrapped up. I believe we do not know much of what we think we know.

That isn't to say I believe humans are stupid or not intelligent -- progression shows us our intelligence and ability to explain our world in terms that we can understand.

But it doesn't matter. What primitives didn't know didn't justify their beliefs in witches and demons.

Witches and demons may yet exist, Tarski.

In the same way, what we don't know doesn't justify our supernatural fantasies. As history shows us, what we learn to be the case will not in the least resemble our silly fantasies.

And what is the natural world that we perceive is the fantasy?

[_Tarski]

That's correct, because consciousness is not measured by these energies.

You are the one that said consciousness was energy remember?

I was open to the idea. I asked Buffalo if that was his assertion, since he equated electrical impulses of the brain to consciousness

I asked you before, what do you think energy is?

Basically, its a measurement of work being performed by a force.

Energy is first and foremost a mathematical function on phase space that is constant along trajectories of systems with time invariant Lagrangians. In field theory it is better to talk about Lagrangian densities and local conservation laws. The fact that it is constant is behind its seeming power--but that is a longish explanation.

Yeah, that. I do not claim to know as much about the sciences as you do.

Why do some things which exist in the universe develop this ability while others do not, since everything is made of the same subatomic particles?

Why do some things develop the ability to fly? What do some things have trunks to wash themselves with while others do not?

It strongly indicates a designer, an organizing agent, or an unmoved mover. It does not, in my opinion, indicate random chance.

Oh but that is clearly explainable in physicalist terms you say?. Yep! Like I said, consciousness only seems to be something that radically transcends matter.
It doesn't anymore than information processing transcends matter (which it does in an innocent sense).

Also, it isn't a simple single ability--it just seems that way because we are not privy to its structure. It is also not unified or continuous. In fact, as it stands, consciousness is a sort of innate folk concept. The more we study it, the less it seems anything like a unified something resembling our animistic magical intuitions. Personally I think it is semi-fictional.

Have you read Chalmers? I'm sure you have. The hard problem of consciousness is subjective experience.

It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does. Emphasis Mine

He contrasts this "hard problem" with what he terms the "easy" problems of consciousness; those which can easily be explained by science:

The easy problems of consciousness are those that seem directly susceptible to the standard methods of cognitive science, whereby a phenomenon is explained in terms of computational or neural mechanisms.

• the ability to discriminate, categorize, and react to environmental stimuli;
• the integration of information by a cognitive system;
• the reportability of mental states;
• the ability of a system to access its own internal states;
• the focus of attention;
• the deliberate control of behavior;
• the difference between wakefulness and sleep.

It seems that what you are referring to in your position are these easy problems, while I am attempting to understand the hard problem.

I think we have a pretty good idea of the general nature of things but I am not as optimistic as say Steven Hawking who seems to think we have it nearly wrapped up.

Did Aristotle think he had a pretty good idea of the general nature of things? Did the medieval Islamic scientists? What we know now far surpasses what they knew, and there is no doubt that our future holds much more knowledge than we can ever dream of. I reject Hawking's idea that we have it nearly wrapped up. I believe we do not know much of what we think we know.

That isn't to say I believe humans are stupid or not intelligent -- progression shows us our intelligence and ability to explain our world in terms that we can understand.

But it doesn't matter. What primitives didn't know didn't justify their beliefs in witches and demons.

Witches and demons may yet exist, Tarski.

In the same way, what we don't know doesn't justify our supernatural fantasies. As history shows us, what we learn to be the case will not in the least resemble our silly fantasies.

And what is the natural world that we perceive is the fantasy?

(I give up on you for now)

[_Tarski]

Have you read Chalmers?

Yes. It is amazing in that he spends almost the whole book agreeing with the points made by the non-mysterian naturalists only to, in the end, just refuse to get the point. He phrases the "hard problem" in such a way that is is just almost unsolvable by definition. He is misguided.

In any case, the only thing he will not let go of is "qualia" which as he sees it, can logically exist in a completely godless mechanical universe devoid of freewill.
This doesn't do you any good. In particular there is no afterlife coming out of it. Not even a hint.

By the way, reading Chalmers without first reading and comprehending Dennett's book "Consciousness Explained" is a bad idea since the former is a sort of response to the latter and assumes implicitly familiarity with those ideas. So have you read Dennett?

[_Simon Belmont]

By the way, reading Chalmers without first reading and comprehending Dennett's book "Consciousness Explained" is a bad idea since the former is a sort of response to the latter and assumes implicitly familiarity with those ideas. So have you read Dennett?

No, I have not read Dennett. Perhaps I will, now that I know about it.

But my position is not that "God must exist because we don't understand the universe." My position is that understanding the universe and understanding God is equally challenging for humans. In other words, in my opinion, the supernatural (God) and the natural are on mostly equal playing ground. The difference is that more time and energy has been devoted to figuring out the natural.

I am happy to allow for the fact that there is so much we do not know. The journey of knowledge reaps its own rewards, and I do not have to try and figure out everything before I accept it. Little by little we have discovered profound truths about our universe, and little by little we have discovered profound truths about God.