The universe as a sentient being
Discussion
ATG said:
Super Sonic said:
ATG said:
When you use the word truth in the context of belief you don't mean "accurate" or "exact", so with all due respect it isn't me who's interrupting words out of context.
It was a slogan from a t-shirt.There is a context in which the slogan makes sense.
You are assuming a different context from the one in which it makes sense, and using that context to assert it doesn't make sense. That's a strawman.
If a statement is made, and it makes sense in a certain context, it is reasonable to assume it was meant in that context.
That T-shirt's slogan is lazy, confrontational b
ks that is philosophically meaningless. It's about atheism versus religionists. It isn't saying anything useful or indeed true about science. It's making claims about science that scientists with any grasp of the philosophy of science would not make. And just in case you think this is some sort of tribal thing, I'm an atheist with a degree and on-going considerable interest in Physics. I'm also interested in and largely ignorant about philosophy.''A degree and an ongoing considerable interest in Physics"
As appeals to authority go, that's weak.ATG said:
Skeptisk said:
A key problem with consciousness is that it is a bit like the idea of God. People seem to instinctively know what it is but if you ask them to define it they can’t.
Before we can decide whether other animals or even plants are conscious we need a clear definition with justification for the criteria used. I don’t think we have such an agreed definition. I think a main part of the problem is that we don’t understand the processes that lead to what we call consciousness.
Some would say that what they mean by consciousness is more fundamental than a behaviour that arises from a process.Before we can decide whether other animals or even plants are conscious we need a clear definition with justification for the criteria used. I don’t think we have such an agreed definition. I think a main part of the problem is that we don’t understand the processes that lead to what we call consciousness.
That might seem a little odd to those of us who have been brought up with a very mechanistic view of the nature of things, but it can't just be dismissed. Serious people who by any normal standard have a pretty solid grounding in science, e.g. Roger Nobel-Prize-in-Physics Penrose, consider it implausible that our minds are things that can be replicated in classical computers even in theory. A lot of thinkers consider it axiomatic that we have free will and consciousness ... i.e. those are fundamental attributes of us. My starting point is very different. I'm comfortable with the idea that my consciousness and sense of free will are just the behaviour of a chunk of matter and that a simulation of that matter in a computer would be just as authentically conscious and capable of exercising free will as me. To a lot of perfectly sensible people, my position seems bizarre and deeply unsatisfactory.
I don’t understand the idea that we couldn’t make a computer that displayed consciousness. Humans are just animals and like everything else are made from atoms (so no special sauce) and they evolved.
Even without a clear definition of consciousness I don’t know how you could say that individual cells (like bacteria) are conscious so consciousness is likely to be a sliding scale rather than all or nothing quality. So it is something that has evolved.
Super Sonic said:
I reiterate what I said above as it still applies.
''A degree and an ongoing considerable interest in Physics" As appeals to authority go, that's weak.
You can keep reiterating your misunderstanding of what I've said if you like, but to what end? You're arguing about something I didn't say.''A degree and an ongoing considerable interest in Physics"
As appeals to authority go, that's weak.And I'm quite clearly NOT making an appeal to authority when I mentioned my educational background. I was making it clear that I'm not objecting to the T-shirt slogan because I'm being tribal ... i.e. I'm not some spiritual woo-merchant. I'm at the very opposite end of the spectrum. That isn't an appeal to authority.
Skeptisk said:
I know people make claims about consciousness but unless it is backed by some data and definitions, I am not sure it means anything.
I don’t understand the idea that we couldn’t make a computer that displayed consciousness. Humans are just animals and like everything else are made from atoms (so no special sauce) and they evolved.
Even without a clear definition of consciousness I don’t know how you could say that individual cells (like bacteria) are conscious so consciousness is likely to be a sliding scale rather than all or nothing quality. So it is something that has evolved.
You're making assumptions that some might reject as being unreasonable axioms, e.g. "Humans are just animals" and the implication that the physical property of particles is the only thing of which we are comprised. Clearly on the basis of your assumptions (and mine) it is pretty hard to see how a computer couldn't be as conscious as anything else. But if you think there's more to us than that, e.g. souls or some quantum influencing weirdness, then you naturally draw a different conclusion. Different axioms, different conclusions.I don’t understand the idea that we couldn’t make a computer that displayed consciousness. Humans are just animals and like everything else are made from atoms (so no special sauce) and they evolved.
Even without a clear definition of consciousness I don’t know how you could say that individual cells (like bacteria) are conscious so consciousness is likely to be a sliding scale rather than all or nothing quality. So it is something that has evolved.
The definition of consciousness is pretty slippery. The idea of self-reflection or awareness of self seems sort-of OK, but you can't directly experience some other thing's consciousness, so if you ask the question "Is Fred conscious?" I don't see how you can ever know. There's no way of distinguishing between Fred being conscious and Fred behaving exactly as though he is conscious. My view is that there is nothing to distinguish. When we say "Fred is conscious" or "I am conscious" I think we're just talking about observable behaviour. What behaviours do we then think sum up to Consciousness? The definition is becoming increasingly arbitrary. It doesn't feel like consciousness is going to be a thing with a clear definition. You could set off down a path that ends up with something like "the capacity to react to external events", but that definition could include a charged particle reacting to a fluctuation in an electric field. Would anyone say it is useful to consider the possibility that an electron is conscious in some sense? Step forward the proponents of panpsychism.
Edited by ATG on Thursday 20th June 13:27
Arguing against something you didn't say?ks about context is just a distraction.
Science is true in the very useful sense that it is accurate or exact.
ETA your assertion that saying you have a degree was not an appeal to authority but you used it to show you're not spiritual is ridiculous as the two aren't mutually exclusive ie you can have a degree and be spiritual.
ATG said:
Unless that's a deliberate joke, it's a big fail to say science is "true" in ANY useful sense.
Given this is what you said, ANY USEFUL SENSE, then all that bks about context is just a distraction.Science is true in the very useful sense that it is accurate or exact.
ETA your assertion that saying you have a degree was not an appeal to authority but you used it to show you're not spiritual is ridiculous as the two aren't mutually exclusive ie you can have a degree and be spiritual.
Edited by Super Sonic on Thursday 20th June 14:07
This is a pointless semantic argument. People use "science" as a noun in a strict way, meaning the process of using the scientific method to investigate the nature of our reality, and in an informal way to mean "the body of information discovered using the scientific method". If you say "Science is true" meaning the former definition, it doesn't make sense. "True" or "False" aren't attributes of that process. If you mean the latter definition, it broadly does, though it's also the case that it's all inherently provisional.
Super Sonic said:
Arguing against something you didn't say?ks about context is just a distraction.
Science is true in the very useful sense that it is accurate or exact.
ETA your assertion that saying you have a degree was not an appeal to authority but you used it to show you're not spiritual is ridiculous as the two aren't mutually exclusive ie you can have a degree and be spiritual.
You need help and a dictionary.ATG said:
Unless that's a deliberate joke, it's a big fail to say science is "true" in ANY useful sense.
Given this is what you said, ANY USEFUL SENSE, then all that bks about context is just a distraction.Science is true in the very useful sense that it is accurate or exact.
ETA your assertion that saying you have a degree was not an appeal to authority but you used it to show you're not spiritual is ridiculous as the two aren't mutually exclusive ie you can have a degree and be spiritual.
Edited by Super Sonic on Thursday 20th June 14:07
TheBinarySheep said:
I think I read something the other day that said up until now, they thought that consciousness was in the brain, but they now believe that every cell in your body could have some sort of consciousness.
A lot of this stuff is actually very old. But progress sometimes shund the past cbutba lot of very intelligent people are actually reassessing it.It clearly works in the quantum state, and I don't buy nothing can travel faster than light I think there is a Mechanism we know nothing about. A layer of space which contains everything as well as being able to track everything.
I think the rules we see are a phantom, a ruse of deeper rules.
Again why look for the answers in space I think they are all around us. 95% if the universe we can never travel to ever. But travel with our mind , could be everywhere and wouldn't break any rules I know off.
ATG said:
You're making assumptions that some might reject as being unreasonable axioms, e.g. "Humans are just animals" and the implication that the physical property of particles is the only thing of which we are comprised. Clearly on the basis of your assumptions (and mine) it is pretty hard to see how a computer couldn't be as conscious as anything else. But if you think there's more to us than that, e.g. souls or some quantum influencing weirdness, then you naturally draw a different conclusion. Different axioms, different conclusions.
It isn’t an assumption that humans are just animals. It is a fact. We are composed of the same stuff, have DNA and share common heritage with all living things such that we are all descended from the last common ancestor). Edited by ATG on Thursday 20th June 13:27
Someone “assuming” differently has to provide evidence for the claim. It isn’t necessary to disprove their claims. The burden of proof lies with those making claims.
Taking souls as one example. I doubt there is a reasonable definition (one that makes sense today with our knowledge of how the universe and biology works). However on top of that there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claim that we have a soul. Conversely for souls to make sense we would probably have to throw out or amend everything we have managed to figure out. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is it?
The same applies for other pseudoscience masquerading as science.
Reality is much more interesting and confusing. Human created stories (religion, witches, astrology) is not as challenging to get your head around as reality eg relativity and quantum mechanics. The double slit experiment doesn’t make intuitive sense however many times I read about it.
juliussneezer said:
I can't believe the science forum houses threads about UFO conspiracies and 'Sentient' Universes.
Isn't there a humour forum for this kinda thing?
Are you saying you know better than these scientific publications? This is what i find odd really, loads of theory's science can't answer.Isn't there a humour forum for this kinda thing?
Can our brains help prove the universe is conscious?
https://www.space.com/is-the-universe-conscious
You also have articles by respected publications like.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-cons...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24632800-90...
https://bigthink.com/13-8/panpsychism-universe-pur...
mickythefish said:
Are you saying you know better than these scientific publications? This is what i find odd really, loads of theory's science can't answer.
Can our brains help prove the universe is conscious?
https://www.space.com/is-the-universe-conscious
You also have articles by respected publications like.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-cons...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24632800-90...
https://bigthink.com/13-8/panpsychism-universe-pur...
They aren’t journals, they are magazines, and ones with a terrible recent history of publishing rubbish to try to improve revenues.Can our brains help prove the universe is conscious?
https://www.space.com/is-the-universe-conscious
You also have articles by respected publications like.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-cons...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24632800-90...
https://bigthink.com/13-8/panpsychism-universe-pur...
New Scientist is to science what The Daily Mail is to journalism.
Ken_Code said:
They aren’t journals, they are magazines, and ones with a terrible recent history of publishing rubbish to try to improve revenues.
New Scientist is to science what The Daily Mail is to journalism.
4New Scientist is to science what The Daily Mail is to journalism.
again odd.
''These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence based through the use of credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer-reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias, but adhere to scientific principles''
v Dailymail
''A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing of credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news.''
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-scientist/
mickythefish said:
again odd.
''These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence based through the use of credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer-reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias, but adhere to scientific principles''
v Dailymail
''A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing of credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news.''
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-scientist/
It’s not odd. You seem determined to think you know better than people who’ve actually been scientists and will jump to anything at all that you can find on the internet that agrees with your imbecilic ideas.''These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence based through the use of credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer-reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias, but adhere to scientific principles''
v Dailymail
''A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing of credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news.''
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-scientist/
Is it fair to assume that you never really “got” science at school?
Ken_Code said:
It’s not odd. You seem determined to think you know better than people who’ve actually been scientists and will jump to anything at all that you can find on the internet that agrees with your imbecilic ideas.
Is it fair to assume that you never really “got” science at school?
No just highlighting stupid comments that make no sense. New scientist is written by "specialists in the field and expert journalists" but in your eyes it is the daily mail, that is moronic, because you don't like what is being written.Is it fair to assume that you never really “got” science at school?
I was well educated thank you.
mickythefish said:
No just highlighting stupid comments that make no sense. New scientist is written by "specialists in the field and expert journalists"
It’s not, it’s an awful publication. And I really don’t believe that you have any degrees in science, you don’t have a clue about the very basics.
Also, you don’t seem to know that the New Scientist is owned by the Mail’s owner.
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/03/d...
Edited by Ken_Code on Friday 21st June 09:06
Skeptisk said:
ATG said:
You're making assumptions that some might reject as being unreasonable axioms, e.g. "Humans are just animals" and the implication that the physical property of particles is the only thing of which we are comprised. Clearly on the basis of your assumptions (and mine) it is pretty hard to see how a computer couldn't be as conscious as anything else. But if you think there's more to us than that, e.g. souls or some quantum influencing weirdness, then you naturally draw a different conclusion. Different axioms, different conclusions.
It isn’t an assumption that humans are just animals. It is a fact. We are composed of the same stuff, have DNA and share common heritage with all living things such that we are all descended from the last common ancestor). Edited by ATG on Thursday 20th June 13:27
Someone “assuming” differently has to provide evidence for the claim. It isn’t necessary to disprove their claims. The burden of proof lies with those making claims.
Taking souls as one example. I doubt there is a reasonable definition (one that makes sense today with our knowledge of how the universe and biology works). However on top of that there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claim that we have a soul. Conversely for souls to make sense we would probably have to throw out or amend everything we have managed to figure out. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is it?
The same applies for other pseudoscience masquerading as science.
Reality is much more interesting and confusing. Human created stories (religion, witches, astrology) is not as challenging to get your head around as reality eg relativity and quantum mechanics. The double slit experiment doesn’t make intuitive sense however many times I read about it.
Skeptisk said:
I don’t understand the idea that we couldn’t make a computer that displayed consciousness. Humans are just animals and like everything else are made from atoms (so no special sauce) and they evolved.
Even without a clear definition of consciousness I don’t know how you could say that individual cells (like bacteria) are conscious so consciousness is likely to be a sliding scale rather than all or nothing quality. So it is something that has evolved.
All of these points seem entirely logical to me and, as such, probably correct.Even without a clear definition of consciousness I don’t know how you could say that individual cells (like bacteria) are conscious so consciousness is likely to be a sliding scale rather than all or nothing quality. So it is something that has evolved.
ATG said:
Yeah, but your perspective is rooted in some philosophical assumptions that you've made. This is inescapable. Your assumptions may seem intuitively obvious to you, but you can't conclude that they are the only tenable assumptions that someone could make. None of this is about superstition or religion or science; it's a step before that.
It would be easier to follow your point if you were more specific about what philosophical assumptions I am making and the alternatives. Clearly I am assuming there is an external reality and that we don’t live in a simulation. Yes that is of course a possibility, but only because if you say that the simulation is indistinguishable from an external reality. So then it is pointless alternative and using Occam’s razor should be ignored as it introduces complexity for no good reason. I’m sure there are other similar assumptions that accord with our understanding of reality eg we assume that physical laws and fundamental constants will remain the same tomorrow as they are today (the universe as it currently is couldn’t exist without that). Again there is no proof that will be the case. But to question that is just philosophical navel gazing best done by first year philosophy students in the pub!
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff