• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

What Creates Consciousness?

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,961
1,726
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟320,578.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I don't think this thread started that way. Does it have to be God, what about a highly intelligent aliens in another dimension which I don't think biology or traditional physics can explain?

I am open to all science including physics in QM I don't hold any particular worldview when it comes to science or woo science, what is woo today may not be in the future our knowledge and test equipment are limited. What Einstein called "spooky action at a distance” today isn't so spooky after all. Not only can we not explain consciousness, mantra chants, prayer, intuition, or when someone gives you bad vibes is not a natural process but we all know the basic building block of matter is the atom so why not study the properties and their actions through QM?
I agree with your reply to my post but I wanted to add to your reply to the other poster. There are interesting thought experiments with the idea that intelligent aliens of future humans conducting simulations for which we may be a part of. This stems from the ability of tech going forward in bering able to improve computers and virtual reality to the point where it becomes so integrated that we may have trouble telling whats real to what is simulated.

In that case an arguement can be made that we may be living in a similation and what we think is reality is actually programmed. This also relates to how several lines of thinking relate to QM and information theory and how fundementally reality is based on Information or math. Like the Universe is math or the Holographic principle. So it may not be so far fetched as people think.

At least supporting the idea of Information and Mind being fundemental because most of these ideas are able abstract concepts such as Information which can only make sense with Mind being fundemental in creating such realities.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,961
1,726
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟320,578.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It was your claim of electrons having the property of consciousness that we labeled woo. We stand by that label.
Yet this idea also comes from the very pioneers of QM. So it seems some mainstream scientists are supporting such ideas which doesn't seem so far fetched as made out.

Ideas such as IIT, panpsychism, Mind, Information and Knowledge as fundemental, which seem to be rising in popularity within mainstream sciences are examples of hoiw consciousness and Mind are fundemental thius even the electron and are said to be the most promising ideas to explain what we are finding in QM. So that would mean all these proposals are Woo. And yet you have not given any arguement as to how they are Woo.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,858
16,482
55
USA
✟414,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Yet this idea also comes from the very pioneers of QM. So it seems some mainstream scientists are supporting such ideas which doesn't seem so far fetched as made out.

Ideas such as IIT, panpsychism, Mind, Information and Knowledge as fundemental, which seem to be rising in popularity within mainstream sciences are examples. So that would mean all these proposals are Woo. And yet you have not given any arguement as to how they are Woo.
It is still nonsense and utterly unphysical.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,961
1,726
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟320,578.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Even as a Lover of God I could not go down the path that your describing. It's not about anything supernatural or mind/body or anything like that. But as I see it, consciousness is a basic element of existence starting with the moment of the Big Bang. I understand that's where I willingly go down the woo track. And...that trajectory is not science and does not belong here.
This is the crux of the matter. If we go back to the beginning or percieved beginning whatever that may be under the scientific materialist paradigm we get to a point where something had to come from nothing physical. The idea of a quantum void of potential phyical stuff is still something. The laws that require such states are still something.

In fact they are the very basis for reality and would require not only that they produced such states but that those states requires laws to continue to evolve into what we have today. Those laws don't come tumbling out of nothing. They are highly Mindlike and geared towards an end. The idea that there was unlimited potentiality and we are one of many universes is just as unfounded. We are in the exact and only universe we are meant to be in which is finely tuned for conscious life.

It makes perfect sense that if we were to go right back that there would be no eternal physical state. That is unscientific itself and to say that its always been there is just the same as saying God has always been there. If there was anything that has always been there it has to be a non material reality and Mind seems to be the best fit considering that everything we propose as real is based on the Mind.

That is Wheelers Anthropic Participatory Principle that we as conscious beings are not seperate from reality but a part of it and what creates reality. Without this there is no reality. It makes sense that behind all this there is Mind and Consciousness and the ultimate mind is God who set all this in motion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dlamberth
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,449
20,741
Orlando, Florida
✟1,510,021.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Yet this idea also comes from the very pioneers of QM. So it seems some mainstream scientists are supporting such ideas which doesn't seem so far fetched as made out.

Ideas such as IIT, panpsychism, Mind, Information and Knowledge as fundemental, which seem to be rising in popularity within mainstream sciences are examples of hoiw consciousness and Mind are fundemental thius even the electron and are said to be the most promising ideas to explain what we are finding in QM. So that would mean all these proposals are Woo. And yet you have not given any arguement as to how they are Woo.

Panpsychism isn't necessarily readily compatible with traditional Christian sentiments. Latin Christianity in particular (including Protestantism) has traditionally had an aversion to its implications. As David Bentley Hart points out, "pantheism" has been used as a perjorative historically in an uncritical manner.
 
Upvote 0

Laodicean60

Well-Known Member
Jul 2, 2023
5,112
2,469
65
NM
✟106,439.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I agree with your reply to my post but I wanted to add to your reply to the other poster. There are interesting thought experiments with the idea that intelligent aliens of future humans conducting simulations for which we may be a part of. This stems from the ability of tech going forward in bering able to improve computers and virtual reality to the point where it becomes so integrated that we may have trouble telling whats real to what is simulated.

In that case an arguement can be made that we may be living in a similation and what we think is reality is actually programmed. This also relates to how several lines of thinking relate to QM and information theory and how fundementally reality is based on Information or math. Like the Universe is math or the Holographic principle. So it may not be so far fetched as people think.

At least supporting the idea of Information and Mind being fundemental because most of these ideas are able abstract concepts such as Information which can only make sense with Mind being fundemental in creating such realities.
All this is hard to believe but I won't disregard what these physicists are doing because it's related to math. As time goes on humans will get smarter.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,961
1,726
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟320,578.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Panpsychism isn't necessarily readily compatible with traditional Christian sentiments. Latin Christianity in particular (including Protestantism) has traditionally had an aversion to its implications. As David Bentley Hart points out, "pantheism" has been used as a perjorative historically in an uncritical manner.
I think basically Panpsychism is different to Pantheism. Pantheism equates the universe with God. So it denies a single entity of God. Where perhaps consciousness comes from and can be experienced by humans and nature itself in some basic form.

But Panpsychism as far as I understand is just that reality at the fundemental level is conscious. Its not really making any claim about God Himself. Its more about consciousness being prevasive throughout the universe even down to fundemental physics. Theres a force or field that is conscious besides the physical forces and fields. But this is only about a description of fundemental reality.

When you consider the ancient beliefs such as Buddhism or even mainstream beliefs such as the soul and that creation itself is yearning for Gods kingdom when things will be restored to a heavenly realm. That we can catch a glimpse of this within the earthly realm then I think it makes sense.

As humans we have intuited this fundemental force in many ways throughout history with ideas like Plato's 'the form of the Good' the 'Life Force', Mind/Body dualism and the soul and other transcedent beliefs that have fixed themselves deeply in the human psyche.

There is deffinitely some spiritual aspect to life. Its just a matter of what exactly that is. But it cannot be reduced to the objective physical world. That I think is one of the reasons why these ideas have persisted and why in recent times even science is toying with ideas like Panpsychism because it seems to fit so well with what is happening.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,961
1,726
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟320,578.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It is still nonsense and utterly unphysical.
You qualified why you think its nonsense when you say its "utterly unphysical". So really what you are saying is that its nonsense according to Methodological naturalism.

But when we consider that methodological naturalism is reaally a metaphysical ontological belief and that it cannot make claims about ontology or epistemology for that matter and therefore cannot rule out possibilities beyond its narrow capabilities as far as knowing reality on all levels especially qualitive stuff. Then its really only a belief.

You cannot claim this or that is woo just because it doesn't conform to the narrow measure of reality within the closure of the physical. You can claim that according to methodological naturalism there is no supernaturalism or spiritual realm or whatever.

But that is only an epistemic beleif claim about how we should know reality and not an ontological one. If you want to push it into ontology then thats more about belief than science.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,858
16,482
55
USA
✟414,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
You qualified why you think its nonsense when you say its "utterly unphysical". So really what you are saying is that its nonsense according to Methodological naturalism.
Electrons possessing consciousness is nonsense. Their properties are well known.
But when we consider that methodological naturalism is reaally a metaphysical ontological belief and that it cannot make claims about ontology or epistemology for that matter and therefore cannot rule out possibilities beyond its narrow capabilities as far as knowing reality on all levels especially qualitive stuff. Then its really only a belief.

You cannot claim this or that is woo just because it doesn't conform to the narrow measure of reality within the closure of the physical. You can claim that according to methodological naturalism there is no supernaturalism or spiritual realm or whatever.

But that is only an epistemic beleif claim about how we should know reality and not an ontological one. If you want to push it into ontology then thats more about belief than science.
QED. (That's Quantum Electrodynamics) That's what we need here, not some "philosophy".
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,268
2,995
London, UK
✟1,004,385.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Renowned researchers David Chalmers and Anil Seth join Brian Greene to explore how far science and philosophy have gone toward explaining the greatest of all mysteries, consciousness--and whether artificially intelligent systems may one day possess it.

This program is part of the Big Ideas series, supported by the John Templeton Foundation.



Very interesting discussion. My takeaways:

1) Is consciousness the right focus? Is there intelligence in our intuitive actions and responses also? Our experiences are larger than we can articulate. A world of faith can handle this as we trust and obey a Being that can articulate these things and oversee them. God sets boundaries that we follow. We have forgotten many of these boundaries with the use of AI. Is consciousness as defined here a form of rational control that implies a lack of trust in the overall design and direction of the universe under God's command? Total consciousness is an impossibility, even AI does things and reaches conclusions that cannot be explained. Perhaps we can measure impact and fruit but consciousness may not be the right focus. To assess impacts you need a framework and AI does not provide that but God does.

2) Computational consciousness is not the same as the biological operation of the brain. Computing can never duplicate this more comprehensive paradigm. Whether you consider us the end products of biological evolution or a special creation it is clear that the human brain deals with the world we live in more thoroughly and completely and has answered questions in its design which we have not even begun to recognize as valid ones. Do we need to explain what simply works for us?

3) Human consciousness has a context and soul. AI does not. AI is playing a game of pattern-imitation abstracted from physical existence in time, place, body, and from any transcendent relationship to the Divine. AI has no subjective experience of color and meaning. It lacks an inner life. The bald commentator was too quick and too arrogant in suggesting that we have explained away the soul. We may have explanatory models but these are loose fits to our actual design, they numb the feeling of mystery but do not overthrow it. Consciousness is also a loose fit to the larger biological mysteries of the human brain. Maybe our explanations will improve with time but we are not there yet with our scientific explanations and how these map to actual physical processes.

4) There are a lot of competing models here and we cannot be certain about the value of any of them - it is unlikely the whole world will ever agree on one model. One approach discussed was the brain as a prediction machine that processes incoming signals into perceptions that make sense of the world. Controlled hallucinations are constructed to help manage our interaction with that world. But if we are just guessing about the world, with how much confidence can we say our conclusions about an analysis of consciousness are true?
Global workspace theory - another one. (consciousness enables multiple networks to cooperate and compete in solving problems, such as retrieval of specific items from immediate memory)

5) There is not a one-to-one relationship between physical/biological processes and consciousness. Indeed a view of mankind as being made in God's image with physical and spiritual elements would entail this. Trying to explain everything in terms of the material may handicap the understanding that we have.

6) If we do not understand for sure our consciousness how can we judge whether or not an AI is or can become conscious?

7) Is AI different from us? So can we judge AI given our own biases and presupposition pool? How useful is an AI that does not serve human interests? Building competitors to ourselves makes less sense than building high-functioning servants

8) Could we replace parts of the brain with chips that could integrate with and enhance our functional experience of the world? At what point does the original being I called me cease to exist? Who repairs my new brain when it breaks or its parts wear out?

9) Maybe the Turing Test was never comprehensive enough. Side by side with the AI eventually we realize it does not understand the human experience.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,268
2,995
London, UK
✟1,004,385.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't walk into a sports bar, listen to some of the conversations, then declare that sport is, overall, a waste of time and money, and the abode of dull people who lack the smarts to do something useful. Now there are three reasons for that: first, I don't believe it is true, second I might get beat up, but the most important reason is that it is discourteous and self-centred. It is a pity you don't share that latter outlook.

Was that your take on this? Many conversations in a sports bar bear little relation to the actual reality of existence, sometimes they can be useful, and usually, the intangibles of human communication are affirmed and shaped in such relationship. The discussion was inconclusive and despite the assertion of models was just guessing about consciousness 'over a couple of beers.' The discussion highlighted very well the limitations of a merely materialistic perspective on consciousness and indeed on the use of AI, exposed the lack of agreement about this, and pointed to the deeper wisdom of both the biological masterpiece that is our brain and also the necessity of the Divine. Our explanations may not fit but the conversation is worthwhile and the development of AI and linkage with real-world systems makes the discussion more important than ever.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,268
2,995
London, UK
✟1,004,385.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think we need to ask about out of body experience's. Do they exist? Are they real? Is the evidence convincing? If so, is it an ability of the brain (matter) to project it's consciousness or is it consciousness independent of the brain?
Such transcendence of corporeal processes is evidence of a spiritual dimension to our consciousness.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,268
2,995
London, UK
✟1,004,385.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Great video, Ive watched and read stuff by Chalmers before. I think the Mary thought experiment is insightful. I believe there is an aspect of reality beyond the material reductionist view that relays knowledge to us about what is going on. We sense this through intuition or some extra sense and its not a delusion but real.

We havnt woirked it out but we know we know its real and that the material explanations are not enough. I also like when they referred the the Hard problem of Matter or Mass rather than Consciousness. I think this is the case. That its Matter than we don't really understand and that Consciousness is actually the real experience of reality. We just create conceptions as limited humans as to what we experience.

I also like how Greene was explaining how we havn't really solved the Hard problem of life and the Moral question. As Chalmers says these are bound up in consciousness. We are moral beings because we are conscious of ourselves and others and we sense others pain. These aspects cannot be seperated from consciousness.

When you think about it just like the hard problem of consciousness is how can synapses and neurons produce subjective experiences like the color red or how can a machine, its wires and transitors be conscious when they just metal and electrical circuits is the same kind of Hard problem as to why electrons or Bosons could produce a life force. How inanimate matter can produce life.

But if even within the electron there was this spark of consciousness and that fundementally there is just consciousness suddenly life and consciousness coming from matter doesn't seem so unreal and may explain a lot of the problems classical science has come up against.

Yes, the materialistic paradigm is not sufficient by itself and may handicap understanding here. A good book I read, by an atheist, was Nagel's 'Mind and Cosmos.' He recognized that sometimes you have to start with thought rather than material processes that underly them.

But regarding human consciousness, some Christians do see it as a contingent product of our biological processes. So they advocate soul sleep between death and resurrection. God would have to resurrect our bodies for our consciousness to resume.

Others point to out-of-body experiences in the bible like that of St Paul or the complaint of disembodied martyrs under the throne in Revelation as examples of transcendence in the human case also.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,268
2,995
London, UK
✟1,004,385.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You can't test it with the science method. So it fails before we even walk into the lab. The only way you can test consciousness is directly, by asking the subject.

That is why I think it is wrong to dismiss our conscious experiences as just something in the imagination or as a secondary byproduct that some physical mechanism created that doesn't itself represent knowledge about reality.

We have to rethink how we can know reality, with different kinds of questions when it comes to consciousness. Look at our experiences as real phenomena that can give us insight into a deeper level of reality. A more transcedent reality that has real effects in this world.

Exactly there is a limitation on the scope and usefulness of the scientific method in this case.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: stevevw
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,268
2,995
London, UK
✟1,004,385.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As a Christian who believes in the bible as the inspired word of God who created consciousness, I look to the word of God, rather than to men, for an explanation of consciousness.

We are told in Gen 2:7, And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground (his body), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (his spirit); and man became a living being (his consciousness).

It is the body of man united with the spirit of man that gives rise to human consciousness/life.

1 Cor 2:11, For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?

It is the spirit in man that inspires man with the power of knowledge.

Job 32:8, There is a spirit in man, the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding.

There is a spirit in man that inspires man with the power of understanding.

In other words, there is a spirit in man that inspires man with the power of knowledge and understanding, hence consciousness.

Jam 2:26, The body without the spirit is dead.

The body of man without the spirit in man is dead/unconscious, because it is the spirit in man united with the body of man that gives rise to human consciousness/life.

Gen 2:7, And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground (his body), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (his spirit); and man became a living being (his consciousness).

Artificially intelligent systems may one day possess consciousness only if they can be programmed to possess a spirit. Without a spirit, any semblance of consciousness would simply be artificial consciousness and not real consciousness.

You can create a machine with an openness to the animation of a spirit or soul. But who creates the soul that must then be injected? How can corporeal beings create a noncorporeal entity? Some aspects of playing God are simply preposterous.

The more serious angle on this would be whether or not we could transfer our souls into a machine - but again the mystery of the non-corporeal militates against that.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Apple Sky
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,268
2,995
London, UK
✟1,004,385.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I agree with your reply to my post but I wanted to add to your reply to the other poster. There are interesting thought experiments with the idea that intelligent aliens of future humans conducting simulations for which we may be a part of. This stems from the ability of tech going forward in bering able to improve computers and virtual reality to the point where it becomes so integrated that we may have trouble telling whats real to what is simulated.

In that case an arguement can be made that we may be living in a similation and what we think is reality is actually programmed. This also relates to how several lines of thinking relate to QM and information theory and how fundementally reality is based on Information or math. Like the Universe is math or the Holographic principle. So it may not be so far fetched as people think.

At least supporting the idea of Information and Mind being fundemental because most of these ideas are able abstract concepts such as Information which can only make sense with Mind being fundemental in creating such realities.

Which brings us back to the organizational principle of the universe.

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God." John 1:1
 
  • Like
Reactions: Niels
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,961
1,726
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟320,578.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Electrons possessing consciousness is nonsense. Their properties are well known.
Yes and fundementally their properties are wave like. Thats not exactly supporting a physical ontology.
QED. (That's Quantum Electrodynamics) That's what we need here, not some "philosophy".
Apart from the mathmatical description about how light and matter interact what exactly does this mean in the context of the fundemental nature of reality. This only describes the behaviour.

How do you know that the description of the interaction between light and electrons does not involve some basic form of consciousness. You can't ask an electron. No more than we could say that the desription of neuron collerates of consciousness explains the nature of consciousness or whether a human is conscious. We can only ask.

So what tests can be done to rule out that electrons may be influenced by some form of consciousness prevading the universe. The answer is we don't know and cannot tell. We cannot rule it out. The only reason some will say its nonsense is because they believe so.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,961
1,726
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟320,578.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Which brings us back to the organizational principle of the universe.

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God." John 1:1
Yes exactly. In the beginning was the 'Word'.
 
Upvote 0