Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Universal Intelligence"?

[bennyboy]

You keep saying that qualia are beyond the reach of science, but that is an unsupported assertion. You don't know that to be true.

No I don't. But there's nothing right now that makes it seem that science, a tool of physical inquiry, can directly study qualia, which cannot currently be interacted with on any level but direct experience.

It seems to be beyond our current science, but a clever experimenter might figure out how to test it tomorrow or future technologies might make it straightforward.

It could be that a clever experiementer will discover that even QM particles don't exist at all except as ideas. But there's no reason right now to believe that scientists are able to interact with anything other than physical correlates of mind-- and so long as that stays the same, there are serious philosophical issues with the science of mind.

And I don't know what you mean by 'philosophically sufficient'.
Philosophy doesn't give us answers, it helps us ask questions and clarify our thinking.

By philosophically sufficient, I mean that the word "mind" represents what I use it for-- my experience of qualia. I've seen plenty of people argue that mind and brain function are necessarily identical, and that brain-monitoring devices are in fact monitoring mind.

This definition is useful if you want a medical test to use on coma patients. It's not philsophically sufficient as a measure of the actual existence of qualia. Hooking a piece of space fungus up to a brain-wave machine and pronouncing a lack of qualia, for example, would be a poor process.

[Chas]

You keep saying that qualia are beyond the reach of science, but that is an unsupported assertion. You don't know that to be true.

No I don't. But there's nothing right now that makes it seem that science, a tool of physical inquiry, can directly study qualia, which cannot currently be interacted with on any level but direct experience.

It seems to be beyond our current science, but a clever experimenter might figure out how to test it tomorrow or future technologies might make it straightforward.

It could be that a clever experiementer will discover that even QM particles don't exist at all except as ideas. But there's no reason right now to believe that scientists are able to interact with anything other than physical correlates of mind-- and so long as that stays the same, there are serious philosophical issues with the science of mind.

And I don't know what you mean by 'philosophically sufficient'.
Philosophy doesn't give us answers, it helps us ask questions and clarify our thinking.

By philosophically sufficient, I mean that the word "mind" represents what I use it for-- my experience of qualia. I've seen plenty of people argue that mind and brain function are necessarily identical, and that brain-monitoring devices are in fact monitoring mind.

This definition is useful if you want a medical test to use on coma patients. It's not philsophically sufficient as a measure of the actual existence of qualia. Hooking a piece of space fungus up to a brain-wave machine and pronouncing a lack of qualia, for example, would be a poor process.

Well, I have not once said brain and mind are the same.

But I see no philosophical difficulty as I am able to leave the question open and accept that we either will or will not find an answer.

But not finding an answer after a finite time - no matter how long - does not mean we will never find an answer.

Philosophy does not give us answers, it only helps us ask better questions.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Philosophy does not give us answers, it only helps us ask better questions.

I think this is the most succinct summary of why abstract constructs within the mind do not give us knowledge, they give us hypotheticals.

If the hypotheticals are testable, we can then form knowledge.

Conducting thought experiments is valuable insofar as it trains us to better think about difficult things, and form better hypothesis.

So, to the agnostic, while I can appreciate the position being argued for the possibility of, you and I both know the only rational thing to do lacking data is to withhold judgement.

The video I posted of Lt. Commander Data was a scene where he begins talking to himself; and only then realizes he's having an experience he's only witnessed in other conscious beings.

That, to me, is the definition of self-awareness, and I believe the issue people have raised with the term.

A being could be aware of the self, and many animals seem to be. This is reinforced by experimentation.

But human self-awareness is not only the awareness of the self, but the ability to assign meaning, qualify the experience of selfdom, and contemplate what it is to be self-aware.

Until we construct or encounter an AI consciousness like Data, we won't know if metacognition is possible for an artificially complex brain, though there's absolutely no reason to assume it isn't.

I myself believe self-aware consciousness is somewhat of an illusion produced to provide a narrative with the evolutionary advantage of better decision-making. It's a belief I've held for some time, and philosophy of mind, neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, and the Youarenotsosmart podcast affirm this belief.

In my opinion, building a "Chat Bot" complex enough to pass the Turing test would be indistinguishable from an AI capable of metacognition, but have no idea if this would imply metacognitive ability through sheer complexity, or simply blur the distinction until it ceases to make conceptual sense.

We may make inferences, but without data (pun intended) or even solid theories based on data to back them up, they're shots in the dark.

[bennyboy]

Philosophy does not give us answers, it only helps us ask better questions.

Yes, and while we are waiting for answers to those questions, it also helps us decide what default or speculative answers we are going to operate on as our favorite candidates for reality. It's often said that scientists take a position knowing full well their accepted answers today will be replaced with new answers tomorrow. But I think the same goes for philosophy.

Right now, I think it's very unclear what mind really is, and the exact nature of its relationship to the brain-- at least with regard to the existence of the mind. I don't think it's right to say there's great evidence for any view on it-- so long as the view isn't introducing new variables unnecessarily (Goddidit or magic fairies did it). Until it is shown how matter can create something so seemingly unique as qualia, I choose to believe that such creation never happens-- that mind is intrinsic to the universe, and that matter is responsible for the content.

[archangle]

Maybe be Benny my boy.

like a radio. The "body state" tunes into whatever is out there. Just like the "eye ball" is tuned to most of the energy reaching the surface of the earth. There is so many physics notions that loosely support your notions. I don't know if it's right or not. I will die not knowing.

There is much less science and engineering that supports "nothing" more than humans in this universe. Much less that supports "I am all that is". Again, this could be right ... I don't know.

My philosophy professor told me "You engineers make this so hard!". I said "Ya, because at some point we say let's go out and build it and see who is right." There is not an "Unlimited" number of solutions.

I use your guys posts to point out the problem with just plain philosophizing. It is why "magic" still has a foot hold. If the person stays in philosophy then they can sound quite reasonable if they dress, speak, and write well.

Building and testing leads to not only better questions, but a better sense of reality. Pages of philosophy, like an artist drawling of a house, Very beautiful ... well written ... how are we going to build it again?

Engineering the truth is quite different. we don'ta dress so well, and some of us can't speller a lick. We just build shit and see it if holds up under as many conditions as reasonably possible. If it fails, we learn and build again. Just because wood worked 200 years ago doesn't mean "I HAVE TO" use it today. Bible guys and anti bible guys should think real hard about this.

example: the axioms: engineering the truth .... relating to "awareness"

Is it more reasonable to hold to the belief that the universe probably has more of whatever humans have?

Or

is it more reasonable to assume that humans probably have more of "something" than the Universe has?

[Ben Davis]

This sums up my thoughts nicely. Good timing, too!

[Chas]

Philosophy does not give us answers, it only helps us ask better questions.

Yes, and while we are waiting for answers to those questions, it also helps us decide what default or speculative answers we are going to operate on as our favorite candidates for reality. It's often said that scientists take a position knowing full well their accepted answers today will be replaced with new answers tomorrow. But I think the same goes for philosophy.

Right now, I think it's very unclear what mind really is, and the exact nature of its relationship to the brain-- at least with regard to the existence of the mind. I don't think it's right to say there's great evidence for any view on it-- so long as the view isn't introducing new variables unnecessarily (Goddidit or magic fairies did it). Until it is shown how matter can create something so seemingly unique as qualia, I choose to believe that such creation never happens-- that mind is intrinsic to the universe, and that matter is responsible for the content.

That's a good summary - except I haven't said we have great evidence for anything. I believe there is some for my view and none for yours.

Therefore, I choose to believe that mind emerges from complexity and that matter has nothing much to do with mind - it's just the hardware.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Maybe be Benny my boy.

like a radio. The "body state" tunes into whatever is out there. Just like the "eye ball" is tuned to most of the energy reaching the surface of the earth. There is so many physics notions that loosely support your notions. I don't know if it's right or not. I will die not knowing.

Are you a chiropractor?

What evidence is there that the human brain is a radio tuning in to human consciousness? Where would such consciousness exist? What would hold it together?

Is it only humans, and if so, how do we explain animals who are self aware?

Why is this a more reasonable belief than the consciousness of an evolved animal residing in the evolved animal, who still exhibits evolved animal behavior, instinct and drives?

Did this consciousness or these souls preexist Homo Sapiens and conveniently attach themselves like parasites to human brains?

[archangle]

Maybe be Benny my boy.

like a radio. The "body state" tunes into whatever is out there. Just like the "eye ball" is tuned to most of the energy reaching the surface of the earth. There is so many physics notions that loosely support your notions. I don't know if it's right or not. I will die not knowing.

Are you a chiropractor?

What evidence is there that the human brain is a radio tuning in to human consciousness? Where would such consciousness exist? What would hold it together?

Is it only humans, and if so, how do we explain animals who are self aware?

Why is this a more reasonable belief than the consciousness of an evolved animal residing in the evolved animal, who still exhibits evolved animal behavior, instinct and drives?

Did this consciousness or these souls preexist Homo Sapiens and conveniently attach themselves like parasites to human brains?

I don't believe in souls, but hey, if you need to address go right ahead. I am only addressing the notion of a possible larger awareness than humans. That we may be part of a larger system. But I am starting to get used to people putting shit wads in my mouth so that they have a better leg to stand in. self fulfilling bullshit is part of being human. we all do it I guess.

I said like a radio, not a radio. There really is no "things" there are only "events". you really are a series of events in this universe. like fire is not a thing. So all the events around you are partly you. That's just common sense. I like that kind of evidence. If you don't understand that, like Chas, you need to back out and let the adults handle it. or crawl back into that bullshit bowl of philosophizing.

The evidence that we are part of a larger system is everywhere. You can look around. I guess you think it is more reasonable to assume we have some "trait" that the universe does not have more of?

"self aware" animals, we are an animal so I am lost to your point. We were built from simpler life forms so of course they posses some of what we do. we are just a tad more complex.

Then, using chas stance we can ask our self if the complexity stops at us. Although Chas really doesn't have the background to even address it with anybody other than local accountant. A basic understanding of astronomy and physics renders the stance "human are at the top" as far less probable than we are just a step in the complexity of the universe.

What is your evidence that we are at "the top" of this complexity increase? What evidence do you have that we have any trait, like mass, energy, or life more than the universe has?

[Mudhammam]

I just finished the book "Solaris" by Stanislaw Lem today. Excellent science fiction with the backdrop of space exploration, the nature of matter, and consciousness. I highly recommend it to everyone in this thread.