How do you explain consciousness?

1 thru science or great control over ones mental being.
2 we can if we want to we have intelligence so to create and thus survive it's merely our system of being that controls the rate in which to discover that answer and that obstruction is money.
3 you have to expect it no matter what one is not god life happens random happens but if ones an idiot at 20 and decides to pick up a book which allows them to grow there is a greater chance that the child will be better off.
4 why would you want to that's the fun part of life but I will say this you may find yourself in the presence of a person and you can't stand their natural scent but overtime you accept it and it doesn't become a smell merely because you desire or like that person. That shows control over your natural resistance the your awareness changed your preference and that is a starting point
I don't know if I answered your question Properly but I honestly think the next stage in human evolution is a choice not a necessity because what's better than thumbs lol our body's our smaller than elephants and tigers yet we are on top of the food chain because we evolved to reign but now we reign what's next

 

I recommend watching the video. I think at this time scientists are trying to ask different questions to really understand what consciousness is and to try to develop a theory of consciousness. I think it's better at this point to ask the questions and to consider the possible answers than to try to draw a conclusion while greater minds than mine are still uncertain.

 

If I destroy my radio does the radio wave cease to exist?

 

I haven't had a chance to listen to this particular TED talk yet but.......
I suspect that when I do I may be able to relate the most ancient
form of consciousness back to:


http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-tejman-deserves-origin-of-life-prize.498508/
Dr. Chaim Tejman deserves Origin of Life Prize.

 

The TL;DR summary of your post:

I don't know something. Therefore, Jesus.

 

If you destroy the radio station, all radios cease to function.

 

The universe is full of radio waves that have nothing to do with radio stations.

The point is, there are those who suppose the brain is more of a radio receiver, than a transmitter - with "radio" being an analogy and not meant literally.

 

Can you define what you mean by "moving towards greater entropy" given that entropy is a measure of disorder.

The evolution of intelligence has nothing to do with entropy. The "sentience" of plants in their ability to react to their environment is primarily a matter of stimuli from chemical/energy signals but we do the same thing. We will react to a smell or feel the wind or sun.

Consciousness is where one can alter the reaction in a deliberate manner. The smell of smoke means danger and therefore take whatever actions might ensure survival is sentience. But to run into a burning building to rescue someone is a conscious decision that goes against the sentient survival instinct.

That is a level of intelligence that indicates an awareness of not only the danger but the potential reward that comes with doing the opposite. And yes, it is there in our every day lives. We go jogging knowing that we might be hit by a car but the reward is that we will feel fitter if we can avoid the risk. We buy stocks and we drive too fast and we drink or eat too much.

We are making those conscious decisions using our intelligence to evaluate the risk/reward and acting accordingly.

 

Consciousness can be referred to as awareness in many cases...perhaps purposeful awareness would be a better term.

 

Moving towards greater disorder.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

I wish you guys would watch the video, or at least skim it.

 

You probably should have read it because nothing I wrote in it has anything to do with Jesus.

 

Evolution is not happening in an isolated system ergo it is not subject to entropy increasing. Isolated systems don't really exist in nature and the 2nd Law is hypothetically correct but not something that would have any impact on evolution since the earth is not an isolated system.

 

yea but one can be made to be aware of something one was not before, for that matter one could be made aware of, against one's will to know. purposeful awareness could be just the desire to know this, and not that.

 

This would be education and knowledge vs. awareness.

 

That is a result of organic matter having the ability to convert one form of energy into another useful form. It takes energy (and apparently consciousness) to avoid decaying into entropy. I found your video interesting and am very open to the possibility of various degrees of consciousness based on the complexity of the organism. I have always considered life itself to be consciousness. For me, the big question going forward is whether consciousness can be contained in an inorganic object such as a computer or if organic matter is required for life as we know it.

 

I read your post. Whether you did or didn't mention Jesus is beside the point. Essentially, you fall into the god of the gaps fallacy.

 

How do you explain consciousness? Did you watch the video or read the article from the op? Do you think we can measure consciousness scientifically? Can we come up with an overarching theory of consciousness?

 

That's an interesting though about energy and entropy. I have also heard that humans and other life are actually agents causing entropy. We take simple forms of energy like solar radiation and convert it into stored energy like plant life for example and thenwhen that plant life decays or burns up it releases the energy into a more disordered state than the original sola energy. I'm sure some scientist would explain it better.

 

We can't yet. But I refuse to fall into the fallacy I mentioned in my previous post. There is strong reason to suspect that consciousness is a product of the brain and nothing more.

 

Before attempting to explain a thing, it's a good idea to first define that thing. This is something you have yet to do (in this thread).

 

Humans haven't stopped evolving.

Perhaps that's your point.

For example, in the last 20K years we've lost brain volume about that of a tennis ball (while human brains probably became more powerful through increased complexity). We've gotten blue eyes. We've evolved an enzyme that allows digestion of milk as adults.

Some would like to think that humans are an "end product". And, it might be possible to show that human evolution is slow right now. But, there isn't any reason to believe that human evolution is over.

And, evolution doesn't have some longer term objective, such as creating humans like those on earth today.

 

Of course it's the product of the brain.

You seem to be assuming that I have taken a theistic position on this. Probably because I asked if consciousness is a soul in the op. I'm not a theist. I'm an agnostic atheist with a conflict between pantheism and nihilism. I would love to see a greater purpose in reality but I don't thus I experience the despair of nihilism.

Sometimes I see a certain beauty in quotes like Carl Sagan's "we are the universe experiencing itself". Einstein also saw the universe as god. From that perspective god is not a person who judges you but a system that follows natural laws. "God" is the natural universe. There is no point praying to such a god to do things for you because it will follow a chain of causes and effects and will not heed your supplication.

You say I'm falling into this fallacy of "the god of the gaps" but I would argue that you may be falling into the fallacy of division (but you haven't really said what your position is so it's just a guess). I see everything as a result of natural processes. "God of the gaps" is the tendency to ascribe supernatural causes to natural events when the cause is unknown. I don't believe in the supernatural. Just because I don't know what the cause is doesn't mean I conclude that it is supernatural.

The ability to reason, to calculate, to remember - sentience - are emergent properties that have arisen because of the complexity of human biology. Each individual element of the brain, each "unit of consciousness" does not share the same property of sentience but combined they become something greater, something entirely unique. The whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. To miss that point is the fallacy of division.

I'm sorry if that bothers you, that's just where I'm at right now. I'm just an imbecile. They are ideas that I think about lately. None of them are my own. I'm just a fool wandering around in the dark aimlessly trying to find meaning in a probably meaningless universe. I struggle with limits of my intellect. I am probably wrong but then , so are you, so is Carl Sagan. We are a subset of the universe so our ability to truly comprehend it will always be limited. Since my mind seeks orderliness and finds beauty in order I will probably continue to seek out a greater meaning and orderliness and I will probably be wrong because in the end the universe from a distance, as a result of entropy, is not much different than a simple bucket of sand. Or so I guess.

In a thread in which I ask for an explanation of consciousness you want me to define consciousness? Watch the video in the op if you want a definition I guess. But really I would be interested to hear your definition or a definition that you find interesting.

 

Great post!

I really like your Sagan quote.

We're human - therefore we don't know everything.

I don't see myself as suffering from nihilism due to not believing in the supernatural. The natural is awe inspiring and fully fulfilling.

 

Not at all. The brain could be a transceiver of consciousnss, not the creator. Hurt the transciever, it no longer receives it. You must not have listened to much discussion on the hard problem?

The activity of the brain which can be measured, observed with instruments is somewhat like measuring or observing the electronics in a tv set. The brain responds to a signal. Replicate the brain perfectly, wire it up to proper power level, it receives consciousness. Awareness.

How would you explain random number generators which with thousands of tests done the conscious intention to affect the numbers affects them, always at a rate higher than chance? How does consciousness, intent, move the results to reflect intent? This implies there is more involved than your opinion could account for.

 

No. Not at all. I don't know about the random number generator test you refer to, but I know that random number generators are not really random. They need a seed number and the algorithm will always produce the same "random" number given the same seed number.

But to your point, I know that the brain is more capable and more aware of external invisible influences than we usually believe it is. I know from my own experience that some people are able to psychically "read" others. Actually we all do it to some extent but we chalk it up to "coincidence" or other "reasonable" explanation. Yet this doesn't mean consciousness is other than what I said.