consciousness?

[Jackalope]

You do realize that this is nothing but an argument from ignorance, correct? I view it as little more than "We don't know, therefore let's let our imaginations run wild" - not that there's anything wrong with imagination, unless it's being used as a proxy for knowledge.

Well ... I call that inductive reasoning, not ignorance.

The part I was referring to was that you can't believe that it's exclusively the result of natural processes. Without demonstrable evidence of a designer or creator, it's not much of a convincing argument from where I sit.

Now, I'll admit that I don't know it's exclusively the result of natural processes. However, as I'm not privy to the existence of demonstrable non-natural entities or processes, I have difficulty appealing to such.

[Question Mark]

I do not know. Since there's no evidence for or against such a thing, I can't justly say anything about it. I don't believe that there is such a thing as things stand, but I don't say that such a thing can't exist. Reading some of your other messages on the thread however, I don't see how, if there is such a thing, you can link it in some way to our being here. There could be some big cosmic consciousness that's simply floating around, maybe taking in the sights, and knows nothing of us. Or it could be a god that people bang on about, who knows?

[justin]

ultimatley i think conciousness is just a product of the mind. no mind no conciousness.

I suspect you mean to say "No brain, no consciousness."

Unfortunately no one has been able to provide a physical mechanism that links consciousness (however defined) to any unique brain process. It's just an assumption born of naturalistic bias.

well once your neurontransmitters stop firing there are no signs of conciousness......not a asumption no functional brain = no signs of conciousness.

At least the idea is not as patently absurd as saying that consciousness is some kind of illusion. If consciousness were an illusion then of what is it an illusion?

nope is not a illusion i agree

Which is worse: Believing in something that exists beyond the physical senses OR denying the direct unmediated evidence of your own experience?

well isn`t your brain mediating your experiance? experiance isn`t very dependable anyways i mean for example when you experiance of the size of the moon when you look outside does that mean that the moon is actually that size or is your perception from you visual experiance manipulating the information recieved? when you take drugs (like mot people i suspect on here doo lol) then would the experiance true just because you experianced it? thoughts are merely a functional by product of physical reaction pretaining to your brain (mind) without it there is no evidence to suggest that the process of thought has been experianced.

[Ryantology]

If you see a number of cards arranged in the shape of a three-story house, would you think that it was created by someone or that it was created merely by the wind?

Which is more likely and why?

1. It is likely that it was created because we have never found evidence of cards, or three-story houses, occurring naturally.
2. This is certainly not true of consciousness.

We do not know much about how consciousness works in 2013, but it is extremely foolish to suggest that we'll never know, and even more foolish to simply make assumptions that involve magic or the supernatural. That's what humanity has done for thousands of years, to explain everything from rain showers to comets to mental illnesses. Where we once had priests and shamans, we now have meteorologists, astronomers, and psychologists. Science has caught up to many apparently supernatural events and shown them to be natural. I have 100% confidence this will prove true with consciousness.

[Jackalope]

If you see a number of cards arranged in the shape of a three-story house, would you think that it was created by someone or that it was created merely by the wind?

Which is more likely and why?

1. It is likely that it was created because we have never found evidence of cards, or three-story houses, occurring naturally.

To expand on this, we can apply inductive reasoning to the case of the card house, because we have experience with cards and card houses, and know that they are man-made objects. It is certainly less clear whether we can extend that to consciousness, as our knowledge in that area is limited. We can't say for certain that it's a result of 100% natural processes, however, as the supernatural appears to be beyond the reach of study, the case for a supernatural origin appears weak.

I keep an open mind on the subject, however, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a non-natural explanation.

[Neo-Scholastic]

A telephone signal is not a thought.

How can you assume it isn't? Neural pathways are basically electric conduits.

"And what is the difference between the two areas of physical storage other than the mode of writing?" Nothing fundamental. What's your point?

That is the point. There is no difference.

It is a statement that the leap of faith needed to believe a naturalistic explanation is relatively small, because all other suggestions are backed by no evidence of any kind.

Oh! so you have no evidence to justify your assumptions and that's okay for you. I see the chances against a naturalistic explanation as rather large. But if you insist that YOURS is smaller than MINE, I'm not going to stop you.

You are entirely incapable of providing a convincing argument that the question is open. Why should I treat your completely, entirely, wholly 100% baseless assertions as if they were anything but the ramblings of a lunatic?

Because you already said that the subject is very complex and no one has yet figured out how physical processes generate experiences. Someday, maybe, but not yet. That makes it an open question, even among competing naturalistic theories. And I'm not the one making any assumptions at all. I'm just doing what you guys do all the time. Questioning your assumptions and challenging your unsupported claims.

---

well isn`t your brain mediating your experiance?

Exactly! Mediating experience is much different than generating it.

isn`t very dependable anyways i mean for example when you experiance of the size of the moon when you look outside does that mean that the moon is actually that size or is your perception from you visual experiance

Sure. Except you cannot say the experience of having an experience is an illusion.

[genkaus]

No. It would be pointless to present anything until you recognize that naturalistic explanations of consciousness are not explanations at all, but rather insane delusions build on absurdities.

If that was true then all the medication in the world would not be able to help you treat depression.

Telephones communicate our thought through electrical and chemical processes, too. What is the difference between a telephone signal and a neural one?

The absence of required redundancy within the network to make it conscious and self-aware.

Books store information too. The means of its storage says nothing about the subjective experience of processing information.

That's because books lack the required mechanism to access their own information.

Yesterday I saw a traffic signal turn red and all the cars stopped. Did I see a thought happen?

You would have if you had been looking for it - i.e. scanning the brains of the drivers.

You cannot prove or disprove that statement. Any fair-minded person can see that this is a faith-based assumption.

Actually, proving it is very simple. People who have their brains removed are not conscious.

[Angrboda]

I know that our consciousness is most likely a result of chemical and electrical interactions in our brains, and evolution as well, but still I find consciousness to be so much more beautiful than that; I just can't believe that the self-awareness of a collection of stardust particles is exclusively a result of some accidental, probabilistic events occurring on a small planet in this cold and dark universe without having any kind of a planner (and purpose) behind it. It's possible, but seems very unlikely to me.

You do realize that this is nothing but an argument from ignorance, correct? I view it as little more than "We don't know, therefore let's let our imaginations run wild" - not that there's anything wrong with imagination, unless it's being used as a proxy for knowledge.

Well ... I call that inductive reasoning, not ignorance.

Induction involves reasoning from the known to the unknown (from a pattern in a small sample to a pattern in the total sample, for example). Since you are attempting to reason from an unknown (the nature of consciousness) to an unknown, yours is not an example of induction, but is, as noted, the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

Regardless of the ultimate answer, we have good evidence that the brain is at least involved in consciousness as manipulation of the brain produces effects on consciousness. It's possible that the brain is not entirely responsible for consciousness. (It's also possible that the effect that manipulating the brain has on consciousness is not a result of the brain being partially involved in consciousness, but such a view seems to require embracing the doctrine of radical skepticism, and so is essentially biting your nose off to spite your face.) So long as we accept that the brain is partially responsible for what we experience, it's a valid supposition that the brain is entirely responsible for consciousness, as this is reasoning from the known to the unknown and is thus a legitimate inductive inference, even if it ultimately proves to be untrue. However, reasoning from what is not known about consciousness, that it is not known to reside solely in the brain, to the conclusion that consciousness results from processes other than those of the brain, outside of its mechanism, is another example of reasoning from the unknown to the unknown, and, if embraced, would be another example of the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

[Rayaan]

1. It is likely that it was created because we have never found evidence of cards, or three-story houses, occurring naturally.
2. This is certainly not true of consciousness.

My main argument was not about the evidence of the cards themselves, but rather how they are arranged, i.e. in an organized state. Organization is the key word here, not cards or three-story houses. For example, if you see some cards lying flat on the floor in a disorganized state, you would automatically deduce that it was most likely caused by an accident or by an action with little conscious effort. But, if you saw the same set of cards arranged in the shape of a house (especially considering how they are balanced on top of each other), you would automatically think that most likely there was a plan and a conscious effort behind that arrangement, not an accident.

So what is wrong with extending that same logic to the existence of consciousness as well as our eyes, brains, hearts, intelligence, DNA, etc.?

---

Induction involves reasoning from the known to the unknown (from a pattern in a small sample to a pattern in the total sample, for example). Since you are attempting to reason from an unknown (the nature of consciousness) to an unknown, yours is not an example of induction, but is, as noted, the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

Known = the greater the level of complexity of a system, the less likely it is that it was created merely by some probabilistic physical interactions.

Actually, to me, that is just common sense, therefore it doesn't even have to be "known" or "proven."

[Ryantology]

My main argument was not about the evidence of the cards themselves, but rather how they are arranged, i.e. in an organized state. Organization is the key word here, not cards or three-story houses. For example, if you see some cards lying flat on the floor in a disorganized state, you would automatically deduce that it was most likely caused by an accident or by an action with little conscious effort. But, if you saw the same set of cards arranged in the shape of a house (especially considering how they are balanced on top of each other), you would automatically think that most likely there was a plan and a conscious effort behind that arrangement, not an accident.

So what is wrong with extending that same logic to the existence of consciousness as well as our eyes, brains, hearts, intelligence, DNA, etc.?

It sounds as if you're describing the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit.