Does Consciousness exist?

Consciousness means the ability to experience life. However there is no proof for consiousness so how can it be true?

We can only be sure that the person that is conscious is the one experiencing it. So I can only know that I'm conscious but cannot know or prove that anyone else is. This becomes illogical cause its something that we cannot prove in any way but know that it exists because we exist.

You can make an argument that conciousness arises out of intelligence but that creates a lot of illogical assumptions. First of all you would have to assume that since our brain is basically interactions of atoms then any interactions cause consciousness. Such as a computer, cities, Planet. This however sounds wrong however we can't prove it.

Also another issue comes into play. What causes you to be conscious in the body, place and time you are in?

This is something that science cannot prove but we experience. So is it real?

Man, this is some serious Descartes ****.

*head asplodes*

Well, for starters Descartes doesn't seem to be tryingto discover the nature of existencebut rather trying to discover the true essence of knowledge, he's more of an epistemologist than a metaphysicist. Second, if you do follow Descartes to his ultimate conclusion and ascribe to his philosophy concerning the nature of knowledge, that anything that can be doubted should be, I think you ultimately have to come to the conclusion that nothing can be known aside from your own existence. That's why I reject the notion of ultimate certainty. Truth is not just what we can be certain of using a method similar to Descartes', it is formed in part by communal agreement. We all agree that gravity exists and that every time an object is dropped it will fall to the Earth, and how many of us would disagree that twenty years from now if someone dropped a ball this effect will happen? But do we really know for certain that twenty years from now if someone drops a ball that it will fall? No, but we accept it based on our communal definition of truth, which would probably fall more in line with Hume than Descartes.

"I think. I am" is Descartes' basic principle (I guess that's what you would call it). The only thing you can absolutely know is that you exist. For you to think "I exist", you must exist to make that thought. Thus, if you know you exist, you are conscious of your existence.cd_rom

Well, for starters Descartes doesn't seem to be tryingto discover the nature of existencebut rather trying to discover the true essence of knowledge, he's more of an epistemologist than a metaphysicist. Second, if you do follow Descartes to his ultimate conclusion and ascribe to his philosophy concerning the nature of knowledge, that anything that can be doubted should be, I think you ultimately have to come to the conclusion that nothing can be known aside from your own existence. That's why I reject the notion of ultimate certainty. Truth is not just what we can be certain of using a method similar to Descartes', it is formed in part by communal agreement. We all agree that gravity exists and that every time an object is dropped it will fall to the Earth, and how many of us would disagree that twenty years from now if someone dropped a ball this effect will happen? But do we really know for certain that twenty years from now if someone drops a ball that it will fall? No, but we accept it based on our communal definition of truth, which would probably fall more in line with Hume than Descartes.

theone86

[QUOTE="cd_rom"]"I think. I am" is Descartes' basic principle (I guess that's what you would call it). The only thing you can absolutely know is that you exist. For you to think "I exist", you must exist to make that thought. Thus, if you know you exist, you are conscious of your existence.illegalimigrant

Since you're interested in the brain, I recommend that you watch "Brain Story" by BBC.

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"][QUOTE="cd_rom"]"I think. I am" is Descartes' basic principle (I guess that's what you would call it). The only thing you can absolutely know is that you exist. For you to think "I exist", you must exist to make that thought. Thus, if you know you exist, you are conscious of your existence.unholymight

[QUOTE="cd_rom"]"I think. I am" is Descartes' basic principle (I guess that's what you would call it). The only thing you can absolutely know is that you exist. For you to think "I exist", you must exist to make that thought. Thus, if you know you exist, you are conscious of your existence.illegalimigrant

Consciousness is not unprovable, in fact many would argue that it is the only thing that is completely provable. Question if you exist, by doing so you are proving to yourself that you exist by merit of asking that question.

Consciousness means the ability to experience life. However there is no proof for consiousness so how can it be true?

We can only be sure that the person that is conscious is the one experiencing it. So I can only know that I'm conscious but cannot know or prove that anyone else is. This becomes illogical cause its something that we cannot prove in any way but know that it exists because we exist.

You can make an argument that conciousness arises out of intelligence but that creates a lot of illogical assumptions. First of all you would have to assume that since our brain is basically interactions of atoms then any interactions cause consciousness. Such as a computer, cities, Planet. This however sounds wrong however we can't prove it.

Also another issue comes into play. What causes you to be conscious in the body, place and time you are in?

This is something that science cannot prove but we experience. So is it real?

illegalimigrant

It's a strawman to say that the brain is just a bunch of atoms interacting. While that's technically true (because everything is made of atoms), it's a gross oversimplification. What allows the brain to produce consciousness is that it is able to process information via neuronal interactions. It has nothing to do with the chemicals being used. Rather, it's an emergent property of networking and cellular communication. The chemicals and electrical signals are all just tools that fascillitate that communication.

A rock cannot have consciousness because it cannot process any kind of information. It is simply inert matter. The same goes for planets and stars. Cities are not conscious because, again, nothing is being processed nor are they really even a singular entity but rather just dense concentrations of buildings and other human construction.

A computer, however, could theoretically have consciousness. It is not absurd to think that at all since computers are essentially artificial brains. They're very rudimentary brains, hence the reason they're not conscious and are nowhere near being conscious yet, but they could get to that point as technology and understanding of neural networking keeps progressing.

I think this also answers your other question about what causes conciousness. It's nothing mystical, it's just a matter of having a sufficientlly powerful processor (or to be more precise, one that is constructed in a certain way, but I won't get into that). Proof of this lies in animals. Not all members of the kingdom animalia are what you would consider conscious. There are some really simple animals out there that have nervous systems, but said nervous systems are so basic that the animal really just acts on hardwired, preprogrammed responses to specific stimuli and nothing else. You don't get a fully conscious creature until the nervous system gets a lot more complex, which thus shows that the nervous system (specficially the central nervous system) is what is responsible for your consciousness.

As for proving consciousness, you said yourself that you exist. You think. Therefore you have consciousness. Therefore consciousness exists. The only question is whether other things are conscious, and the answer to that question depends entirely on whether or not anything else besides you exists at all. If the world truly does exist as you see it, then yes, consciousness exists because there would be no reason to suspect that you are somehow fundamentally different from the rest of your species.

Since you're interested in the brain, I recommend that you watch "Brain Story" by BBC.

brandojones

[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="illegalimigrant"] I guess what I'm trying to get at is that there are things we cannot prove but experience in every day life. This is something that I wanted to use as an argument for atheism that you should only believe in that which is logical and can be proven. However you need to ignore the only part of your life that makes anything matter which is consciouness which is itself unprovable. If there is any atheist please respond with a counter argument as I would like to use this for arguments.illegalimigrant

While you're looking that up, also look up verificationism ... it wipes out both God and 'existence of conscienceness' from the story, so I don't see where you're going with this.

This thread is now about Betty White....

[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="illegalimigrant"] I guess what I'm trying to get at is that there are things we cannot prove but experience in every day life. This is something that I wanted to use as an argument for atheism that you should only believe in that which is logical and can be proven. However you need to ignore the only part of your life that makes anything matter which is consciouness which is itself unprovable. If there is any atheist please respond with a counter argument as I would like to use this for arguments.illegalimigrant

Most renowned philosophers base their theories on the obsevance of an effect. Socrates explored logic and argumentation, Descartes tried to find knowledge by discarding that which could be doubted, Hume studied causation and cognative development, Kant observed the operation of human perception and questioned our long-held beliefs about it, what are you basing your conclusions on? What is this glimpse of something more than a physical life you refer to? How is consciousness a fallacy?

[QUOTE="brandojones"]

Since you're interested in the brain, I recommend that you watch "Brain Story" by BBC.

illegalimigrant

Fundamentally that's what consiousness is. It's what happens when you get an extremely powerful processor capable of highly complex input/output. Or rather, it's what happens when that processor is capable of creating it's own input. Thus, there must always be an entity to experience consciousness since without the entity there is no consciousness.

And just to head you off at the pass, no, this does not mean that consiousness is a delusion since we've already established that it exists. It just means it's nature isn't supernatural as most people like to think it is.

[QUOTE="brandojones"]

Since you're interested in the brain, I recommend that you watch "Brain Story" by BBC.

illegalimigrant

They talk about that in the show. Makes you think doesn't it. ;)

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"][QUOTE="brandojones"]

Since you're interested in the brain, I recommend that you watch "Brain Story" by BBC.

gameguy6700

Fundamentally that's what consiousness is. It's what happens when you get an extremely powerful processor capable of highly complex input/output. Or rather, it's what happens when that processor is capable of creating it's own input. Thus, there must always be an entity to experience consciousness since without the entity there is no consciousness.

And just to head you off at the pass, no, this does not mean that consiousness is a delusion since we've already established that it exists. It just means it's nature isn't supernatural as most people like to think it is.

Well, that's if you trust in science as an acceptable means of explaining the nature of existence.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"] But does consciouness have to do with the brain? I mean we can have a brain that does all the basic functions like a computer but there really doesn't need to be any entity experiencing it. You know just put some input and get some output. theone86

Fundamentally that's what consiousness is. It's what happens when you get an extremely powerful processor capable of highly complex input/output. Or rather, it's what happens when that processor is capable of creating it's own input. Thus, there must always be an entity to experience consciousness since without the entity there is no consciousness.

And just to head you off at the pass, no, this does not mean that consiousness is a delusion since we've already established that it exists. It just means it's nature isn't supernatural as most people like to think it is.

Well, that's if you trust in science as an acceptable means of explaining the nature of existence.

There's no reason to think that it isn't. In fact, science was born from the very problem this topic is about.

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"]

Consciousness means the ability to experience life. However there is no proof for consiousness so how can it be true?

We can only be sure that the person that is conscious is the one experiencing it. So I can only know that I'm conscious but cannot know or prove that anyone else is. This becomes illogical cause its something that we cannot prove in any way but know that it exists because we exist.

You can make an argument that conciousness arises out of intelligence but that creates a lot of illogical assumptions. First of all you would have to assume that since our brain is basically interactions of atoms then any interactions cause consciousness. Such as a computer, cities, Planet. This however sounds wrong however we can't prove it.

Also another issue comes into play. What causes you to be conscious in the body, place and time you are in?

This is something that science cannot prove but we experience. So is it real?

gameguy6700

It's a strawman to say that the brain is just a bunch of atoms interacting. While that's technically true (because everything is made of atoms), it's a gross oversimplification. What allows the brain to produce consciousness is that it is able to process information via neuronal interactions. It has nothing to do with the chemicals being used. Rather, it's an emergent property of networking and cellular communication. The chemicals and electrical signals are all just tools that fascillitate that communication.

A rock cannot have consciousness because it cannot process any kind of information. It is simply inert matter. The same goes for planets and stars. Cities are not conscious because, again, nothing is being processed nor are they really even a singular entity but rather just dense concentrations of buildings and other human construction.

A computer, however, could theoretically have consciousness. It is not absurd to think that at all since computers are essentially artificial brains. They're very rudimentary brains, hence the reason they're not conscious and are nowhere near being conscious yet, but they could get to that point as technology and understanding of neural networking keeps progressing.

I think this also answers your other question about what causes conciousness. It's nothing mystical, it's just a matter of having a sufficientlly powerful processor (or to be more precise, one that is constructed in a certain way, but I won't get into that). Proof of this lies in animals. Not all members of the kingdom animalia are what you would consider conscious. There are some really simple animals out there that have nervous systems, but said nervous systems are so basic that the animal really just acts on hardwired, preprogrammed responses to specific stimuli and nothing else. You don't get a fully conscious creature until the nervous system gets a lot more complex, which thus shows that the nervous system (specficially the central nervous system) is what is responsible for your consciousness.

"Consciousness means the ability to experience life" does not suffice because it does not pinpoint what you'd like to discuss/argue.

If consciousness is the ability to experience life, then what is your definition of life?

In arguments like these, it would be very wise to define all of your terms before proceeding lest you'd like to enter the fray unprepared.

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"][QUOTE="brandojones"]

Since you're interested in the brain, I recommend that you watch "Brain Story" by BBC.

gameguy6700

Fundamentally that's what consiousness is. It's what happens when you get an extremely powerful processor capable of highly complex input/output. Or rather, it's what happens when that processor is capable of creating it's own input. Thus, there must always be an entity to experience consciousness since without the entity there is no consciousness.

And just to head you off at the pass, no, this does not mean that consiousness is a delusion since we've already established that it exists. It just means it's nature isn't supernatural as most people like to think it is.

"Consciousness means the ability to experience life" does not suffice because it does not pinpoint what you'd like to discuss/argue.

If consciousness is the ability to experience life, then what is your definition of life?

In arguments like these, it would be very wise to define all of your terms before proceeding lest you'd like to enter the fray unprepared.

Shad0ki11

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Fundamentally that's what consiousness is. It's what happens when you get an extremely powerful processor capable of highly complex input/output. Or rather, it's what happens when that processor is capable of creating it's own input. Thus, there must always be an entity to experience consciousness since without the entity there is no consciousness.

And just to head you off at the pass, no, this does not mean that consiousness is a delusion since we've already established that it exists. It just means it's nature isn't supernatural as most people like to think it is.

gameguy6700

Well, that's if you trust in science as an acceptable means of explaining the nature of existence.

There's no reason to think that it isn't. In fact, science was born from the very problem this topic is about.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Fundamentally that's what consiousness is. It's what happens when you get an extremely powerful processor capable of highly complex input/output. Or rather, it's what happens when that processor is capable of creating it's own input. Thus, there must always be an entity to experience consciousness since without the entity there is no consciousness.

And just to head you off at the pass, no, this does not mean that consiousness is a delusion since we've already established that it exists. It just means it's nature isn't supernatural as most people like to think it is.

gameguy6700

Well, that's if you trust in science as an acceptable means of explaining the nature of existence.

There's no reason to think that it isn't. In fact, science was born from the very problem this topic is about.

Here I'm differentiating between explaining existence and explaining the nature of existence. Yes, science tells us that cells interact, neurons fire, and that creates consciousness, or at least that is what we accept as that is what our current level of technology is able to tell us. In other words we know that our consciousness is somehow bound to our brain and we know how our brain operates, but we do not know the essence of existence or consiousness. You're concluding that because we can know the operation of our brain we can know that consciouness is a by-product of this operation, that's a philosophy based on science but apart from it. Furthermore, if you want to get back away from metaphysics and into epistemology you could apply Descartes' concept of the great deceiver to the operation of science. We know what we know through perception, we can trust our instruments that aid in that perception to the point that we know they're doing what we designed them to do, but how do we know that what we are perceiving is directly representative of what is actually there?

[QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]

"Consciousness means the ability to experience life" does not suffice because it does not pinpoint what you'd like to discuss/argue.

If consciousness is the ability to experience life, then what is your definition of life?

In arguments like these, it would be very wise to define all of your terms before proceeding lest you'd like to enter the fray unprepared.

illegalimigrant

That's the point. It doesn't have a clear definition, so define it...or find several academic sources explaining what the definition of life may be.

How can you start an argument by defining that consciousness is the ability to experience life if you don't know what the definition of life is?

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"]

Consciousness means the ability to experience life. However there is no proof for consiousness so how can it be true?

We can only be sure that the person that is conscious is the one experiencing it. So I can only know that I'm conscious but cannot know or prove that anyone else is. This becomes illogical cause its something that we cannot prove in any way but know that it exists because we exist.

You can make an argument that conciousness arises out of intelligence but that creates a lot of illogical assumptions. First of all you would have to assume that since our brain is basically interactions of atoms then any interactions cause consciousness. Such as a computer, cities, Planet. This however sounds wrong however we can't prove it.

Also another issue comes into play. What causes you to be conscious in the body, place and time you are in?

This is something that science cannot prove but we experience. So is it real?

illegalimigrant

It's a strawman to say that the brain is just a bunch of atoms interacting. While that's technically true (because everything is made of atoms), it's a gross oversimplification. What allows the brain to produce consciousness is that it is able to process information via neuronal interactions. It has nothing to do with the chemicals being used. Rather, it's an emergent property of networking and cellular communication. The chemicals and electrical signals are all just tools that fascillitate that communication.

A rock cannot have consciousness because it cannot process any kind of information. It is simply inert matter. The same goes for planets and stars. Cities are not conscious because, again, nothing is being processed nor are they really even a singular entity but rather just dense concentrations of buildings and other human construction.

A computer, however, could theoretically have consciousness. It is not absurd to think that at all since computers are essentially artificial brains. They're very rudimentary brains, hence the reason they're not conscious and are nowhere near being conscious yet, but they could get to that point as technology and understanding of neural networking keeps progressing.

I think this also answers your other question about what causes conciousness. It's nothing mystical, it's just a matter of having a sufficientlly powerful processor (or to be more precise, one that is constructed in a certain way, but I won't get into that). Proof of this lies in animals. Not all members of the kingdom animalia are what you would consider conscious. There are some really simple animals out there that have nervous systems, but said nervous systems are so basic that the animal really just acts on hardwired, preprogrammed responses to specific stimuli and nothing else. You don't get a fully conscious creature until the nervous system gets a lot more complex, which thus shows that the nervous system (specficially the central nervous system) is what is responsible for your consciousness.

In response:

- No we don't "need" neurons. Hypothetically speaking any system capable of encoding and communicating information could create consciousness. I don't know what to make about your point of "who makes those specifications" since I don't really understand what you're getting at there. It seems like you're presuming that there must be some sort of creator

- Computers do not computer information as fast as humans. While they are on a completely different level than us when it comes to calculations and certain other tasks, they're absolutely terrible at tasks that humans perform with barely any effort at all. For example, facial recognition and emotional recognition are tasks that the human brain does in less than a fraction of a second. In contrast, it takes computers hours to do the same task, if they can even do it at all. Again, going back to what I said about a processor needing to be "constructed in a certain way" in my original post, it's not necessarily the raw power of the processor but rather it's properities. Computers use serial processing which is fine when you only need to combat a task with a singular focus. It sucks when you have to do multiple different types of processing at once though. Brains, on the other hand, use parallel processing (and probably use both serial and parallel). Parallel processing allows one task to be split up into multiple different tasks and tackled by different processors, and the degree to which the brain utilizes this makes even the world's most powerful supercomputer look like a basic arthematic calculator.

- A city does not process. The example you gave about a city setting up defenses is not the city's doing, but the populace's doing. In other words, it is groups of already conscious creatures that are performing the actions.

- If you think that a single rock is capable of processing then it's safe to say that you do not understand what processing even is

- What makes a person a king and another a peasant? I suggest you take some sociology and psychology courses and find out for yourself ;)

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Well, that's if you trust in science as an acceptable means of explaining the nature of existence.

illegalimigrant

There's no reason to think that it isn't. In fact, science was born from the very problem this topic is about.

Well, what is a fact? Strictly speaking, science was born out of observation and conclusion, which proceed the fact as we know it, so science, at least in our understanding of it, proceeds the facts it observes.

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"][QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]

"Consciousness means the ability to experience life" does not suffice because it does not pinpoint what you'd like to discuss/argue.

If consciousness is the ability to experience life, then what is your definition of life?

In arguments like these, it would be very wise to define all of your terms before proceeding lest you'd like to enter the fray unprepared.

Shad0ki11

That's the point. It doesn't have a clear definition, so define it...or find several academic sources explaining what the definition of life may be.

How can you start an argument by defining that consciousness is the ability to experience life if you don't know what the definition of life is?

[QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"] The only problem is that even though our life revolves around it we really don't have a clear definition for it. Or what it is. Even consciousness is wrong as it could simply mean brain activity. Basically what I wanted to define it is as the entity that you are that experiences life.illegalimigrant

That's the point. It doesn't have a clear definition, so define it...or find several academic sources explaining what the definition of life may be.

How can you start an argument by defining that consciousness is the ability to experience life if you don't know what the definition of life is?

You're disputing that consciousness exists, on what grounds? Using Descartes' logic yes, I cannot be sure that anyone other than myself exists, but I can be sure that I exist so consciousness DOES exist, my own. You can't be sure my consciousness exist, but you can be sure yours does because you are questioning it. Say there is a god, say he is controlling your thoughts and everything you do, that still means you are able to be controlled, you are still a thinking thing.

[QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"] The only problem is that even though our life revolves around it we really don't have a clear definition for it. Or what it is. Even consciousness is wrong as it could simply mean brain activity. Basically what I wanted to define it is as the entity that you are that experiences life.illegalimigrant

That's the point. It doesn't have a clear definition, so define it...or find several academic sources explaining what the definition of life may be.

How can you start an argument by defining that consciousness is the ability to experience life if you don't know what the definition of life is?

You may benefit from a critical reasoning course. >_>

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"][QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]

That's the point. It doesn't have a clear definition, so define it...or find several academic sources explaining what the definition of life may be.

How can you start an argument by defining that consciousness is the ability to experience life if you don't know what the definition of life is?

Shad0ki11

You may benefit from a critical reasoning course. >_>

[QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"] Look my point is not to argue about how to properly start a debate. I would like to see the rulebook that we must use to think. You want a definition how about this one. Consciousness is subjective experience or awareness or wakefulness or the executive control system of the mind. Even that one is not complete because is something that we cannot define. Although humans realize what everyday experiences are, consciousness refuses to be defined, philosophers note. So maybe that is why I can't have a proper definition. There isn't one. Lets get back to topic.illegalimigrant

You may benefit from a critical reasoning course. >_>

Philosophers note, which philosophers and in what way? What is your argument anyways? You don't have a coherent conclusion, you're basically piecing together different parts of different philosophies of which you don't appear to have a complete understanding of in the first place to support, what, a belief about god?

[QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"] Look my point is not to argue about how to properly start a debate. I would like to see the rulebook that we must use to think. You want a definition how about this one. Consciousness is subjective experience or awareness or wakefulness or the executive control system of the mind. Even that one is not complete because is something that we cannot define. Although humans realize what everyday experiences are, consciousness refuses to be defined, philosophers note. So maybe that is why I can't have a proper definition. There isn't one. Lets get back to topic.illegalimigrant

You may benefit from a critical reasoning course. >_>

It's not about your argument being right or wrong, it's about being effective when it comes to an argument, especially with a topic such as "Does Consciousness Exist".

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Well, that's if you trust in science as an acceptable means of explaining the nature of existence.

theone86

There's no reason to think that it isn't. In fact, science was born from the very problem this topic is about.

Here I'm differentiating between explaining existence and explaining the nature of existence. Yes, science tells us that cells interact, neurons fire, and that creates consciousness, or at least that is what we accept as that is what our current level of technology is able to tell us. In other words we know that our consciousness is somehow bound to our brain and we know how our brain operates, but we do not know the essence of existence or consiousness. You're concluding that because we can know the operation of our brain we can know that consciouness is a by-product of this operation, that's a philosophy based on science but apart from it. Furthermore, if you want to get back away from metaphysics and into epistemology you could apply Descartes' concept of the great deceiver to the operation of science. We know what we know through perception, we can trust our instruments that aid in that perception to the point that we know they're doing what we designed them to do, but how do we know that what we are perceiving is directly representative of what is actually there?

I don't dispute that it's impossible to know what causes consciousness. That's because I don't dispute that it's impossible to know anything except that my consciousness exists. However, I don't think that it's very productive to get hung up on that.

Anyway, as far scientific observation goes, you're right that we can't be certain about what we observe. However, when you get to a certain level of evidence, and when your conclusions made from that evidence can be used to manipulate the phenomena in question, it becomes extremely unlikely that you're wrong. You still could be, there could be a hidden mediating process going on that only makes it seem that you're correct, but like I said, at a certain point that becomes unlikely. And while "it's very likely" isn' the same thing as "knowing", it's about as good as you're going to get considering that "knowing" is, as we both agree, impossible.

In response:

- No we don't "need" neurons. Hypothetically speaking any system capable of encoding and communicating information could create consciousness. I don't know what to make about your point of "who makes those specifications" since I don't really understand what you're getting at there. It seems like you're presuming that there must be some sort of creator

- Computers do not computer information as fast as humans. While they are on a completely different level than us when it comes to calculations and certain other tasks, they're absolutely terrible at tasks that humans perform with barely any effort at all. For example, facial recognition and emotional recognition are tasks that the human brain does in less than a fraction of a second. In contrast, it takes computers hours to do the same task, if they can even do it at all. Again, going back to what I said about a processor needing to be "constructed in a certain way" in my original post, it's not necessarily the raw power of the processor but rather it's properities. Computers use serial processing which is fine when you only need to combat a task with a singular focus. It sucks when you have to do multiple different types of processing at once though. Brains, on the other hand, use parallel processing (and probably use both serial and parallel). Parallel processing allows one task to be split up into multiple different tasks and tackled by different processors, and the degree to which the brain utilizes this makes even the world's most powerful supercomputer look like a basic arthematic calculator.

- A city does not process. The example you gave about a city setting up defenses is not the city's doing, but the populace's doing. In other words, it is groups of already conscious creatures that are performing the actions.

- If you think that a single rock is capable of processing then it's safe to say that you do not understand what processing even is

- What makes a person a king and another a peasant? I suggest you take some sociology and psychology courses and find out for yourself ;)

In responce to this argument you still havent showed anything just saying the same thing you said last time. The first part if prossesing power makes up consciouness then a smart guy is more conscious than a mentally retarted one. Just like a human is more consious than an animal. and an animal is to a bacteria. And a bacteria to a virus. And a virus to a molecule and a molecule to an atom etc. What you are getting at is that everything is conscious. So is there really an specification saying once you reach an IQ of 5 then you are conscious?

Second point I built neural networks so i know a little bit about computer prossesing. Your argument has become that now we need parallel prossesing for consciousness. Again computers have parallel so they must be conscious. And you might say well they proccess different information than we do but who decides what information is valuable in order to create consciousness? This is not a reference to God so don't even bring that up but you are saying that there is a point where something is considered conscious and something isn't. So is 400mhz and 2 proccessess at the same time that point. I'm just going with your argument and making fallacies.

And the argument about the city it proccesses things like a human's brain does infact it does it much better since it has more proccesses going on at the same time. So it should be more conscious. Here is an example. 55 people see an invading army they send word to the gorvernment. They do their processes to set up defences. While others recruit people. A system is set in place to arm the populace to defend against the threat. etc. There is a lot of parallel processes going on at the same time so by your own logic a city should be more conscious than a human. Since a human has the same processes.

And the rock well think about the basic parts of a computer. If I create a eletrical swich that gives me just 1 reguardless of wheather I input 1 or 0. Isn't that a process? A simple one but put those processes together and you create a computer. So if a computer is conscious because of those switches then aren't the switches conscious too since they form the computer. Same for the brain if we are conscious then the cells must be too since they form us. And everything that forms the cell and you would basically have to say that everything is conscious.

And the last part you really did not think about it. What makes you be born to be conscious in a body that is defective than in a body that is healthy. Does psycology choose that like you stated. What picks that?

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"][QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]

You may benefit from a critical reasoning course. >_>

theone86

Philosophers note, which philosophers and in what way? What is your argument anyways? You don't have a coherent conclusion, you're basically piecing together different parts of different philosophies of which you don't appear to have a complete understanding of in the first place to support, what, a belief about god?

[QUOTE="illegalimigrant"][QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]

That's the point. It doesn't have a clear definition, so define it...or find several academic sources explaining what the definition of life may be.

How can you start an argument by defining that consciousness is the ability to experience life if you don't know what the definition of life is?

theone86

You're disputing that consciousness exists, on what grounds? Using Descartes' logic yes, I cannot be sure that anyone other than myself exists, but I can be sure that I exist so consciousness DOES exist, my own. You can't be sure my consciousness exist, but you can be sure yours does because you are questioning it. Say there is a god, say he is controlling your thoughts and everything you do, that still means you are able to be controlled, you are still a thinking thing.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

There's no reason to think that it isn't. In fact, science was born from the very problem this topic is about.

gameguy6700

Here I'm differentiating between explaining existence and explaining the nature of existence. Yes, science tells us that cells interact, neurons fire, and that creates consciousness, or at least that is what we accept as that is what our current level of technology is able to tell us. In other words we know that our consciousness is somehow bound to our brain and we know how our brain operates, but we do not know the essence of existence or consiousness. You're concluding that because we can know the operation of our brain we can know that consciouness is a by-product of this operation, that's a philosophy based on science but apart from it. Furthermore, if you want to get back away from metaphysics and into epistemology you could apply Descartes' concept of the great deceiver to the operation of science. We know what we know through perception, we can trust our instruments that aid in that perception to the point that we know they're doing what we designed them to do, but how do we know that what we are perceiving is directly representative of what is actually there?

I don't dispute that it's impossible to know what causes consciousness. That's because I don't dispute that it's impossible to know anything except that my consciousness exists. However, I don't think that it's very productive to get hung up on that.

Anyway, as far scientific observation goes, you're right that we can't be certain about what we observe. However, when you get to a certain level of evidence, and when your conclusions made from that evidence can be used to manipulate the phenomena in question, it becomes extremely unlikely that you're wrong. You still could be, there could be a hidden mediating process going on that only makes it seem that you're correct, but like I said, at a certain point that becomes unlikely. And while "it's very likely" isn' the same thing as "knowing", it's about as good as you're going to get considering that "knowing" is, as we both agree, impossible.

In response:

- No we don't "need" neurons. Hypothetically speaking any system capable of encoding and communicating information could create consciousness. I don't know what to make about your point of "who makes those specifications" since I don't really understand what you're getting at there. It seems like you're presuming that there must be some sort of creator

- Computers do not computer information as fast as humans. While they are on a completely different level than us when it comes to calculations and certain other tasks, they're absolutely terrible at tasks that humans perform with barely any effort at all. For example, facial recognition and emotional recognition are tasks that the human brain does in less than a fraction of a second. In contrast, it takes computers hours to do the same task, if they can even do it at all. Again, going back to what I said about a processor needing to be "constructed in a certain way" in my original post, it's not necessarily the raw power of the processor but rather it's properities. Computers use serial processing which is fine when you only need to combat a task with a singular focus. It sucks when you have to do multiple different types of processing at once though. Brains, on the other hand, use parallel processing (and probably use both serial and parallel). Parallel processing allows one task to be split up into multiple different tasks and tackled by different processors, and the degree to which the brain utilizes this makes even the world's most powerful supercomputer look like a basic arthematic calculator.

- A city does not process. The example you gave about a city setting up defenses is not the city's doing, but the populace's doing. In other words, it is groups of already conscious creatures that are performing the actions.

- If you think that a single rock is capable of processing then it's safe to say that you do not understand what processing even is

- What makes a person a king and another a peasant? I suggest you take some sociology and psychology courses and find out for yourself ;)

In responce to this argument you still havent showed anything just saying the same thing you said last time. The first part if prossesing power makes up consciouness then a smart guy is more conscious than a mentally retarted one. Just like a human is more consious than an animal. and an animal is to a bacteria. And a bacteria to a virus. And a virus to a molecule and a molecule to an atom etc. What you are getting at is that everything is conscious. So is there really an specification saying once you reach an IQ of 5 then you are conscious?

Second point I built neural networks so i know a little bit about computer prossesing. Your argument has become that now we need parallel prossesing for consciousness. Again computers have parallel so they must be conscious. And you might say well they proccess different information than we do but who decides what information is valuable in order to create consciousness? This is not a reference to God so don't even bring that up but you are saying that there is a point where something is considered conscious and something isn't. So is 400mhz and 2 proccessess at the same time that point. I'm just going with your argument and making fallacies.

And the argument about the city it proccesses things like a human's brain does infact it does it much better since it has more proccesses going on at the same time. So it should be more conscious. Here is an example. 55 people see an invading army they send word to the gorvernment. They do their processes to set up defences. While others recruit people. A system is set in place to arm the populace to defend against the threat. etc. There is a lot of parallel processes going on at the same time so by your own logic a city should be more conscious than a human. Since a human has the same processes.

And the rock well think about the basic parts of a computer. If I create a eletrical swich that gives me just 1 reguardless of wheather I input 1 or 0. Isn't that a process? A simple one but put those processes together and you create a computer. So if a computer is conscious because of those switches then aren't the switches conscious too since they form the computer. Same for the brain if we are conscious then the cells must be too since they form us. And everything that forms the cell and you would basically have to say that everything is conscious.

And the last part you really did not think about it. What makes you be born to be conscious in a body that is defective than in a body that is healthy. Does psycology choose that like you stated. What picks that?

illegalimigrant

The problem is that you keep assuming that consciousness is an inherent property, when what I've been trying to explain to you this whole time is that it is in not an inherent property but rather an emergent one.

In other words, consciousness is a property of matter that only results once certain conditions have been met. You cannot take it backwards to suggest that everything that contains one or some of those properties also holds consciousness. That's like saying that a pebble is a city because cities are made out of stone.

I'm done trying to explain this. I'm willing to keep debating when the debate actually goes somewhere, but thus far it's just been us going in circles and I have no reason to expect that that will change.

So the 6 to 7 billion other people in the world that I am lead to believe are real, as well as this website, the posters, and the post themselves are all a figment of my imagination? Even so, I'd have to say that there is some sort of sentience in existence for myself to do so. Besides, I burned myself pretty bad the other day and it hurt like hell. My imagination must be a powerful thing to do such. :P

It's quite simple really:

Since we have arrived to the conclusion that the only way to prove conciousness exists is by acknowledging our own existence, and because of that the only conciousness we can be absolutely sure exists is our own, then these premises must also be true of everyone else, since they share the condition of "humans".

So all you have to do is ask everyone else if they are concious, and since it's safe to assume all of them will reply "yes", then it's safe to say that conciousness does indeed exist. :P

It's quite simple really:

Since we have arrived to the conclusion that the only way to prove conciousness exists is by acknowledging our own existence, and because of that the only conciousness we can be absolutely sure exists is our own, then these premises must also be true of everyone else, since they share the condition of "humans".

So all you have to do is ask everyone else if they are concious, and since it's safe to assume all of them will reply "yes", then it's safe to say that conciousness does indeed exist. :P

black_cat19