Consciousness, free will, and falsifying dualism

[scientia]

I'm working on a theory of consciousness, free will, and artificial intelligence. I have made quite a bit of progress but have not reached the point of explaining what awareness is. It has occurred to me though that a completed theory would disprove dualism. And of course, dualism is the basis for all life-after-death beliefs including Christian. I'm not sure how society in general would react to this. It could result in a rapid decline of traditional religious views. It could result in my being seen as evil incarnate by fundamentalist Christians. On the other hand, we have the parable of the talents. Charles Darwin was well aware of the implications of Evolutionary theory long before he published it. If the internet had been around 150 years ago, I wonder if he would have made a similar post. Other points of view might be interesting.

 

[Mickiel]

I'm working on a theory of consciousness, free will, and artificial intelligence. I have made quite a bit of progress but have not reached the point of explaining what awareness is. It has occurred to me though that a completed theory would disprove dualism. And of course, dualism is the basis for all life-after-death beliefs including Christian. I'm not sure how society in general would react to this. It could result in a rapid decline of traditional religious views. It could result in my being seen as evil incarnate by fundamentalist Christians. On the other hand, we have the parable of the talents. Charles Darwin was well aware of the implications of Evolutionary theory long before he published it. If the internet had been around 150 years ago, I wonder if he would have made a similar post. Other points of view might be interesting.

I read Julian Jaynes book on the Bicameral mind and consciousness; a stunning read, and a difficult one because he was an intellectual and wrote like one. One of the few books that I have picked up, and have never stopped learning from it.

I encourage you to continue you're work and not base it on what Christianity may think about it.

 

[scientia]

I read Julian Jaynes book on the Bicameral mind and consciousness; a stunning read, and a difficult one because he was an intellectual and wrote like one. One of the few books that I have picked up, and have never stopped learning from it.

I encourage you to continue you're work and not base it on what Christianity may think about it.

Thank you. Jaynes makes several fundamental mistakes in his theory. There was no difference in cognitive awareness at the time the Bible or Illiad was written.

Speaking and listening is not a correct metaphor since you need verbal ability for both. The non-verbal part of the brain doesn't speak or listen while the verbal part does both. Strangely though we are now getting somewhat similar theories of awareness based on "broadcasting".

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'm working on a theory of consciousness, free will, and artificial intelligence. I have made quite a bit of progress but have not reached the point of explaining what awareness is. It has occurred to me though that a completed theory would disprove dualism. And of course, dualism is the basis for all life-after-death beliefs including Christian. I'm not sure how society in general would react to this. It could result in a rapid decline of traditional religious views. It could result in my being seen as evil incarnate by fundamentalist Christians. On the other hand, we have the parable of the talents. Charles Darwin was well aware of the implications of Evolutionary theory long before he published it. If the internet had been around 150 years ago, I wonder if he would have made a similar post. Other points of view might be interesting.

You won't sway devout Christians, because you can't disprove a soul. Consciousness as an emergent property doesn't convince anyone as long as they can move the goalposts back.

 

[Received]

I'm working on a theory of consciousness, free will, and artificial intelligence. I have made quite a bit of progress but have not reached the point of explaining what awareness is. It has occurred to me though that a completed theory would disprove dualism. And of course, dualism is the basis for all life-after-death beliefs including Christian. I'm not sure how society in general would react to this. It could result in a rapid decline of traditional religious views. It could result in my being seen as evil incarnate by fundamentalist Christians. On the other hand, we have the parable of the talents. Charles Darwin was well aware of the implications of Evolutionary theory long before he published it. If the internet had been around 150 years ago, I wonder if he would have made a similar post. Other points of view might be interesting.

You probably never will be able to explain what awareness is, given that explanations by definition objectify, and awareness can only be explained by appealing to it, experiencing it, not unlike explaining colors to a person born blind. Unless you think you can reduce awareness to biological or neural correlates, in which case you're going beyond the "correlate" part.

Some things simply can't be defined.

 

[durangodawood]

You probably never will be able to explain what awareness is, given that explanations by definition objectify, and awareness can only be explained by appealing to it, experiencing it, not unlike explaining colors to a person born blind. Unless you think you can reduce awareness to biological or neural correlates, in which case you're going beyond the "correlate" part......

Whats the problem with that?

 

[scientia]

You won't sway devout Christians, because you can't disprove a soul. Consciousness as an emergent property doesn't convince anyone as long as they can move the goalposts back.

I have never proposed emergent properties. I'm not sure how you could have a soul without dualism.

 

[scientia]

You probably never will be able to explain what awareness is, given that explanations by definition objectify, and awareness can only be explained by appealing to it, experiencing it, not unlike explaining colors to a person born blind. Unless you think you can reduce awareness to biological or neural correlates, in which case you're going beyond the "correlate" part.

That's not my approach. If philosophy were enough to explain consciousness, Daniel Dennett would already have the answer or someone would have before Dennet.

Also if it were easily explained with neurology, I'm sure someone like Harris would have already done that.

I'm actually approaching it from four different directions and am looking for an explanation that would either prove or disprove artificial consciousness. At this point in time, I've already disproved consciousness based on Von Neuman architecture. The question is whether a different architecture would allow it.

 

[Tree of Life]

I'm working on a theory of consciousness, free will, and artificial intelligence. I have made quite a bit of progress but have not reached the point of explaining what awareness is. It has occurred to me though that a completed theory would disprove dualism. And of course, dualism is the basis for all life-after-death beliefs including Christian. I'm not sure how society in general would react to this. It could result in a rapid decline of traditional religious views. It could result in my being seen as evil incarnate by fundamentalist Christians. On the other hand, we have the parable of the talents. Charles Darwin was well aware of the implications of Evolutionary theory long before he published it. If the internet had been around 150 years ago, I wonder if he would have made a similar post. Other points of view might be interesting.

The Christian hope of the resurrection from the dead in no way depends upon dualism.

 

[scientia]

The Christian hope of the resurrection from the dead in no way depends upon dualism.

Well, you might have a new idea. Explain a soul without dualism.

 

[Tree of Life]

Well, you might have a new idea. Explain a soul without dualism.

I don't typically use the term "soul" to describe a person. But, if pressed, I would say that "soul" generally refers to all the attributes of a person that cannot be seen (in the normal sense of "seeing"). "Soul" could have to do with existential mental states, plans, fears, hopes, vices, etc... A person's "soul" in inextricably connected with his body. One does not really exist without the other.

That being said, "soul" is not a technical term. Nor is it a common biblical term. The Bible does not emphasize "duality" in the same way that some theologies often do.

 

[juvenissun]

I have never proposed emergent properties. I'm not sure how you could have a soul without dualism.

What is wrong with dualism?

 

[scientia]

I would say that "soul" generally refers to all the attributes of a person that cannot be seen (in the normal sense of "seeing"). "Soul" could have to do with existential mental states, plans, fears, hopes, vices, etc... A person's "soul" in inextricably connected with his body. One does not really exist without the other.

That's the common definition of deterministic consciousness. So, when you die, you cease to exist unless at least your brain is resurrected somehow? I guess by this definition, no one currently is in heaven.

 

[scientia]

What is wrong with dualism?

I explained that at the start. A theory of consciousness would disprove dualism.

 

[Tree of Life]

That's the common definition of deterministic consciousness. So, when you die, you cease to exist unless at least your brain is resurrected somehow? I guess by this definition, no one currently is in heaven.

This is correct. Our hope is the physical resurrection of our physical bodies - just like Jesus' resurrection. Our resurrected bodies will no longer be subject to death and we will live forever on a renewed, physical earth. "Heaven" is not yet here.

 

[Mickiel]

Thank you. Jaynes makes several fundamental mistakes in his theory. There was no difference in cognitive awareness at the time the Bible or Illiad was written.

Speaking and listening is not a correct metaphor since you need verbal ability for both. The non-verbal part of the brain doesn't speak or listen while the verbal part does both. Strangely though we are now getting somewhat similar theories of awareness based on "broadcasting".

What Jaynes theory did for me, was explain what the bible may have meant when it referred to Adam as " The first man", well obviously he was not the first man God created, but he may well be the first man God created with a consciousness. I believe the spirit God blew into Adam, or that breath of life, included his image , or consciousness; and I don't think he did that to primordial man.

After reading Jaynes theory, I thought this possible.

 

[Received]

That's not my approach. If philosophy were enough to explain consciousness, Daniel Dennett would already have the answer or someone would have before Dennet.

Also if it were easily explained with neurology, I'm sure someone like Harris would have already done that.

I'm actually approaching it from four different directions and am looking for an explanation that would either prove or disprove artificial consciousness. At this point in time, I've already disproved consciousness based on Von Neuman architecture. The question is whether a different architecture would allow it.

Harris says bluntly and openly that brain processes can't explain consciousness, but can only explain the contents of consciousness (including personality as a whole). Dennett has his own objections philosophically.

What do you mean by disproving consciousness? You can't disprove a faculty we know exists. That's like saying you disprove intelligence. (Well, actually, for most people that's easy to disprove.)

What do you mean by architecture and Von Neuman?

 

[Davian]

I'm working on a theory of consciousness, free will, and artificial intelligence. I have made quite a bit of progress but have not reached the point of explaining what awareness is. It has occurred to me though that a completed theory would disprove dualism.

You may disprove a flavour of dualism, if you were to define it, or tackle an existing hypothesis.

And of course, dualism is the basis for all life-after-death beliefs including Christian.

Or, they will simply move those goalposts.

I'm not sure how society in general would react to this. It could result in a rapid decline of traditional religious views.

I suspect it will be of little concern to the masses, if it does not affect their internet access or television reception.

It could result in my being seen as evil incarnate by fundamentalist Christians. On the other hand, we have the parable of the talents. Charles Darwin was well aware of the implications of Evolutionary theory long before he published it. If the internet had been around 150 years ago, I wonder if he would have made a similar post. Other points of view might be interesting.

I do not expect science to falsify the unfalsifiable (religion).

You can see some of my notes on the subject of consciousness here.

Welcome to CF!

 

[Radagast]

I'm working on a theory of consciousness, free will, and artificial intelligence.

Many people have been working on this. Douglas Hofstadter, Francis Crick, and many, many others.

But producing such a theory would not, of course, disprove dualism. If a theory explains the empirical facts, that does not of itself imply that the theory is true and that all the alternatives are false.

 

[scientia]

What Jaynes theory did for me, was explain what the bible may have meant when it referred to Adam as " The first man", well obviously he was not the first man God created, but he may well be the first man God created with a consciousness.

After reading Jaynes theory, I thought this possible.

That depends on what you mean by "consciousness". Even fish have some awareness, other mammals have emotion, and primates can do at least some abstract thinking. However, none of our ancestors or close relatives like Neanderthal painted or sculpted or made buildings. As far as we know, Homo Sapiens is the only species on Earth to ever acquire this behavioral mutation.