The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Raw unfiltered musings. Critiques may not be for the faint of heart.

Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby cladking on October 19th, 2018, 1:49 pm 

Braininvat » October 19th, 2018, 10:56 am wrote:Could you post the definition of "superstition" you are using, Clad? Might be less confusing to readers, to fully explicate in what regard scientists entertain superstitions. I got this definiton from the OED:

mass noun

1. Excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural.
‘he dismissed the ghost stories as mere superstition’

2, A widely held but irrational belief in supernatural influences, especially as leading to good or bad luck, or a practice based on such a belief.
‘she touched her locket for luck, a superstition she'd had since childhood’



Perhaps more to the point of your question;

Most scientists believe in "laws of nature". They believe there are immutable laws that govern reality at all times. Their knowledge is a summation and formatting for these laws which they hold as models.

I believe any such "laws" are virtually by definition supernatural and hence superstitions.

Reality is composed of the same natural logic which we quantify and call "mathematics". We understand reality through math but they are not the same and only share the logic which underlies them.
cladking
Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 23 Jul 2010


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby davidm on October 19th, 2018, 3:20 pm 

Laws do not govern nature. They describe it. Nothing could be further from supernatural or superstitious.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 441
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby cladking on October 21st, 2018, 10:00 am 

davidm » October 19th, 2018, 2:20 pm wrote:Laws do not govern nature. They describe it. Nothing could be further from supernatural or superstitious.


We each build our own models of reality.

When any individual builds any model it is what he believes. I'm very sympathetic to the definition you used here for "laws" but these are still merely words and all individuals do not share your understanding.

You say "laws" "describe" nature but the question becomes what exactly does "describe" mean in every application.

To say this another way, using the right words suggests you're a good scientist but it hardly proves that this model is shared by all individuals or even that your model is necessarily correct in every instance. It's not the fault of the individual that we have great difficulty even assessing your model but rather it is the complexity of human knowledge and the failures of communication.
cladking
Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 23 Jul 2010


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby davidm on October 21st, 2018, 11:04 am 

cladking » October 21st, 2018, 8:00 am wrote:
davidm » October 19th, 2018, 2:20 pm wrote:Laws do not govern nature. They describe it. Nothing could be further from supernatural or superstitious.


We each build our own models of reality.

When any individual builds any model it is what he believes. I'm very sympathetic to the definition you used here for "laws" but these are still merely words and all individuals do not share your understanding.

You say "laws" "describe" nature but the question becomes what exactly does "describe" mean in every application.

To say this another way, using the right words suggests you're a good scientist but it hardly proves that this model is shared by all individuals or even that your model is necessarily correct in every instance. It's not the fault of the individual that we have great difficulty even assessing your model but rather it is the complexity of human knowledge and the failures of communication.


What you say here is not the same as your prior claim -- that the "laws" of physics are somehow supernatural or superstitions. Are you now withdrawing that claim?
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 441
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby Brent696 on October 21st, 2018, 12:36 pm 

davidm » October 21st, 2018, 11:04 am

What you say here is not the same as your prior claim -- that the "laws" of physics are somehow supernatural or superstitions. Are you now withdrawing that claim?


Would it be better to say that there are mathematical patterns to which nature follows, such patterns would be the "Laws of Nature", and yet as we try to discern these "Laws", we create mathematical formulas in order to express them. Such "Formulas" are "Models" that we use in order to attempt to understand the underlying Patterns to which Matter in subservient.

The Law of Inertia is not dependent upon Matter for its information, its foundation is in the underlying relationship between the dimensions of this universe, the same with Entropy, etc...

Laws do govern Nature(phenomenon/Matter), but our mathematical Models of such laws seek to describe them.
User avatar
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 223
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby cladking on October 21st, 2018, 1:31 pm 

davidm » October 21st, 2018, 10:04 am wrote:
What you say here is not the same as your prior claim -- that the "laws" of physics are somehow supernatural or superstitions. Are you now withdrawing that claim?


I believe what I said (or at least what I tried to say) is that most scientists' (et al) understanding of experiment is held in a form of belief and is hence a superstition. I merely cited a belief in the "laws of physics" as an example of this.

There are no "laws". There is merely a logical relationship between all cause and all effect within reality. We use this same "logical relationship" in a quantified form and call it "mathematics". But then we lose sight of the nature of reality, the physics to describe it, and our own nature which is the nature of consciousness.

Math seems to be reality to us but it merely has the same internal logic as nature and hence has a correspondence to it. In reality all things are unique and can't even be manipulated as we do with math.

We are our beliefs and then we extrapolate those beliefs to apply to all things whether their foundation is in religion or experiment. This is caused by the nature of language to "program" the brain. It is caused by the nature of modern language to limit our ability to see from many perspectives and especially to not be able to see the nature of language and consciousness.
cladking
Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 23 Jul 2010


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby cladking on October 21st, 2018, 1:41 pm 

Brent696 » October 21st, 2018, 11:36 am wrote:
Would it be better to say that there are mathematical patterns to which nature follows, such patterns would be the "Laws of Nature", and yet as we try to discern these "Laws", we create mathematical formulas in order to express them. Such "Formulas" are "Models" that we use in order to attempt to understand the underlying Patterns to which Matter in subservient.


I'm in close agreement with the definition but would tend to say the "patterns" are not so much "mathematical" in nature but rather "logical". All things fall to the center of gravity of the earth unless it has something to support it. The force that prevents it is the normal force.

Most, if not all, of these patterns can be expressed mathematically but they are in no way beholden to math. Even if we find all reality can be quantified there is still the effect of chaos which will probably always limit prediction.
cladking
Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 23 Jul 2010


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby davidm on October 21st, 2018, 1:43 pm 

So the definition of "belief" now is "superstition"? If I believe that if I throw a rock up in the air that it will come back down, that is a superstition? If I believe I understand why it will come down, that is also a superstition?
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 441
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby wolfhnd on October 21st, 2018, 2:12 pm 

I believe that if I invest in the stock market I will get a better return than investing in CDs. In this case my belief is tied to pattern recognition concerning abstract social constructs. The kicker is that those abstract ideas will have consequences in reality such as how much I have to eat (perhaps).

So what does any of the above have to do with human consciousness? Presumably because your ability to manipulate abstractions (IQ) effects "freewill" somehow. The ability to make choices is dependent on the ability to devise alternative actions. There is an obvious evolutionary advantage for apes there in that bees share to a lesser degree.

Consciousness is clearly more than awareness. In fact it seems tied to the ability to focus awareness. Consciousness seems to be the ability to recall your place in the world involving self awareness.

I like Daniel Dennett's approach to consciousness because it is pragmatic side stepping the "big questions". The pragmatists approach recognizes the limitations of our knowledge but also recognizes that what we do know provides fertile grounds for exploration. Pragmatism and empiricism are a good match for the current world.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4728
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby cladking on October 22nd, 2018, 9:34 am 

davidm » October 21st, 2018, 12:43 pm wrote: If I believe that if I throw a rock up in the air that it will come back down, that is a superstition? If I believe I understand why it will come down, that is also a superstition?


Believing it can not get stuck in the gutter is superstition.
Believing it must come down because it "always" does in experiment is superstition.
Believing it obeys laws of nature is superstition.

There's nothing wrong with your thought experiment but I would contend there are ways to describe the fact that it can come down without invoking natural law. It would seem that even the best explanations of why it comes down are much more akin to describing the effects of gravity rather than the cause.

We tend to hold even our knowledge in the form of belief. Obviously this affects our consciousness and less obviously it is caused by the language we use. Only modern humans use language which must be parsed and whose words are symbolic. It is the reason that we must study nature indirectly through experiment. We already have language and religion that is unique to each individual; science must be repeatable.
cladking
Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 23 Jul 2010


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby Braininvat on October 22nd, 2018, 9:52 am 

There are several points that seem unsupported, but I'll just ask: how is language unique to each individual?
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6854
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby cladking on October 22nd, 2018, 10:09 am 

Braininvat » October 22nd, 2018, 8:52 am wrote:There are several points that seem unsupported, but I'll just ask: how is language unique to each individual?


The statement is hyperbole but rooted in the nature of language.

Each word must be parsed and we do this on a real time basis. The definitions and connotations we ascribe to these words determine our estimation of the meaning (intent) of the utterance. This can be shown by relaying a message from individual to individual. the message changes with each retelling.

As bad as this is it understates the real problem. We each have different beliefs and we see only our beliefs. Two people who speak the exact "same" language can be so out of touch with one another they can't really communicate.

We usually don't notice things like taking a different meaning because we assume that we took the intended meaning. Nor do we usually notice when there is a communication breakdown because our premises are so much different than the other. It's not terribly unusual to hear two speakers conversing on unrelated topics without being aware of it!!!!
cladking
Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 23 Jul 2010


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby Braininvat on October 22nd, 2018, 11:21 am 

And yet here we are, communicating. And science is a discipline where highly technical and specific terminology is developed for the purpose of dealing with the problem and transmitting information in a precise way. That's why scientists aren't building "their own models of reality," but addressing patterns in the external world that everyone observes to be the same. The models of science have value precisely because they are not particular to one individual, and models are rejected when observations and experimental results are not repeatable and reproducible everywhere. That is the "pragmatism and empiricism" that Wolfhound was speaking of. Science works as a counterforce to superstition precisely because it does not allow anyone to have their own facts, derived from their subjective perspective.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6854
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby davidm on October 22nd, 2018, 11:31 am 

cladking » October 22nd, 2018, 7:34 am wrote:
davidm » October 21st, 2018, 12:43 pm wrote: If I believe that if I throw a rock up in the air that it will come back down, that is a superstition? If I believe I understand why it will come down, that is also a superstition?


Believing it can not get stuck in the gutter is superstition.
Believing it must come down because it "always" does in experiment is superstition.
Believing it obeys laws of nature is superstition.


No, none of these beliefs are superstitions, and I must also note that you did not actually answer my two questions, but rearranged them to answer something else I did not ask. I'll further point out that I specifically said the opposite of the claim that the ball in its flight "obeys" the "laws" of physics.

Here, again, is the definition of superstition:

1. Excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural.
‘he dismissed the ghost stories as mere superstition’

2, A widely held but irrational belief in supernatural influences, especially as leading to good or bad luck, or a practice based on such a belief.
‘she touched her locket for luck, a superstition she'd had since childhood’


How in the world does my example of tossing a ball up and believing it will come down, and moreover believing we know why it will come down, meet either of the two above criteria for a superstition?
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 441
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby Brent696 on October 22nd, 2018, 1:33 pm 

Within the realm of consciousness, when one throws a ball into the air, they have to use "belief", even if that belief is in their understanding of physics. I believe Clad is using the word as regards that the knowledge within us, is not a law of nature itself.

This is not a dis of science nor its superior standing as it comes to determining the rules or patterns that govern matter. When one believes the ball will fall back down, they are relying upon a hidden reality they cannot see nor know directly. We (science) create models that represent such laws, but the laws themselves, the unseen forces that control the universe, are beyond our direct perception, we simply see the Effects.

"Magic" could also refer to Gravity in this sense, we can measure the phenomenal effects, those things we "perceive" through our cognitive awareness, but we can never see actually Gravity itself. When it is said the universe is an illusion, a hologram projected from a 2d platform, then our cognitive awareness is being deceived, when we experience time as an objective flow, we are deceived.

Our intuitive conscious experience is constantly deceived by the nature of the universe around us, when Carl Sagan says "we are all made of star stuff" this is a Mystification, we are also made of rat poo and fertilizers. Setting most of science beside, and focusing on physics, the nature of the universe is still mystifying, beyond our grasp. Yes, we expect the ball to fall, but that is merely one of several possibilities, yet when you toss it up, you must believe, you must hope, the reality you expect (falling) is not interfered with and thus another reality manifest.

In dealing with consciousness, we have to deal with the world inside our heads, the model of the world produced in our frontal lobes as opposed to some such reality that exists "out there". This level of disconnect can be considered "superstitious", though I would have chosen a different word as what seems to be apparent in this conversation, this word to some brings up other less agreeable connotations.

One might say the human being, all humans, are superstitious by nature and design, although with the advance of knowledge, and understanding better the underlying patterns that drive nature, we are less superstitious than we used to be, but unless we attain Nirvana, we will always possess a level of superstition as our consciousness is divided from the world we experience.
User avatar
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 223
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby cladking on October 22nd, 2018, 9:03 pm 

Brent696 » October 22nd, 2018, 12:33 pm wrote:
In dealing with consciousness, we have to deal with the world inside our heads, the model of the world produced in our frontal lobes as opposed to some such reality that exists "out there". This level of disconnect can be considered "superstitious", though I would have chosen a different word as what seems to be apparent in this conversation, this word to some brings up other less agreeable connotations.

One might say the human being, all humans, are superstitious by nature and design, although with the advance of knowledge, and understanding better the underlying patterns that drive nature, we are less superstitious than we used to be, but unless we attain Nirvana, we will always possess a level of superstition as our consciousness is divided from the world we experience.


Yes!

This would be neither important nor relevant except that this is unique to modern humans and it defines the manifestation of consciousness for us. All other life and humans before 2000 BC experience reality directly.

This "consciousness" isn't merely self awareness or awareness of environment but rather the experience of the self in nature in a logical (mathematical) matrix. It is just as scientific as anything we do today but rather than being based in observation and experiment, it is based in observation and the logic of the brain and nature itself.

I use the term "superstition" not so much for its shock value as its accuracy. That we are superstitious is proven over and over again by the way in which science, religion, and the affairs of man unfold.

Let me sleep on some of these other recent ideas and objections.
cladking
Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 23 Jul 2010


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby cladking on October 23rd, 2018, 9:42 am 

Braininvat » October 22nd, 2018, 10:21 am wrote: And science is a discipline where highly technical and specific terminology is developed for the purpose of dealing with the problem and transmitting information in a precise way. That's why scientists aren't building "their own models of reality," but addressing patterns in the external world that everyone observes to be the same. The models of science have value precisely because they are not particular to one individual, and models are rejected when observations and experimental results are not repeatable and reproducible everywhere.


Everybody is looking at the same experimental results and building his own models to understand them. This is why experts disagree and why they have their own individual predictions. They can do the math right but still end up in different places while each being wrong.

Scientific language is much better than everyday language but it is still parseable and still easily confused.

That is the "pragmatism and empiricism" that Wolfhound was speaking of. Science works as a counterforce to superstition precisely because it does not allow anyone to have their own facts, derived from their subjective perspective.


I'm not suggesting the problem is with science. The problem is with language and the way in which we are forced to hold knowledge.

Each individual has his own unique perspective. A medical doctor won't see the same thing in a new diagnostic tool as a physicist, an engineer, or a materials scientist. This is especially pronounced among scientists normally just because of the high degree of specialization that is common today. But there is only one "diagnostic tool" and one "reality".
cladking
Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 23 Jul 2010


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby cladking on October 23rd, 2018, 9:55 am 

davidm » October 22nd, 2018, 10:31 am wrote:
cladking » October 22nd, 2018, 7:34 am wrote:
davidm » October 21st, 2018, 12:43 pm wrote: If I believe that if I throw a rock up in the air that it will come back down, that is a superstition? If I believe I understand why it will come down, that is also a superstition?


Believing it can not get stuck in the gutter is superstition.
Believing it must come down because it "always" does in experiment is superstition.
Believing it obeys laws of nature is superstition.



OK, let me try again.

Part of the problem here is mere semantics. We use words like "belief" to describe our thought processes as we experience them. I believe I've stated this so it will be understood. My experience tells me that bright people will properly parse those words to see that I'm saying "belief" is about thought and we use the word "belief" to describe our thinking.

All "belief" is superstition but it doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong nor derived from reading tea leaves. We can hold superstitions that are essentially correct. But more importantly we can also hold knowledge that is not mere belief. A baseball player knows how to hit the ball so that it is likely to clear the infield. Even a child knows from experience held as visceral knowledge that a stone thrown in the air will fall back.

But most things preceded by "I believe" are a reflection not of knowledge and reality but of beliefs which often have supernatural components and a host of assumptions, axioms, and definitions which are rarely directly related to the consideration of that beliefs.
cladking
Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 23 Jul 2010


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby davidm on October 23rd, 2018, 10:08 am 

Superstitious means having to do with the supernatural. The fact that I can predict, correctly, that the ball will come down, has no component whatever of the supernatural. Sorry, you don't get to redefine words to suit your own assumptions and axioms. Maybe you think God gently guides the ball down or pushes the planets in their orbits, but I don't.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 441
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby Braininvat on October 23rd, 2018, 12:19 pm 

Believing it must come down because it "always" does in experiment is superstition.


Inductive reasoning (see the many threads on this here) is not superstition. Induction has its epistemic problems, as has been noted by philosophers ever since David Hume, but relying on the supernatural is not one of them.

This thread seemed to be flowing more towards philosophy (and the need for more definitional rigor) and less towards science, which is why it was moved out of SCF. I am not seeing testable hypotheses being offered, which would be needed for it to be slotted in Personal Theories.

And, last I checked, doctors, engineers, and physicists do agree on the physical principles underlying an MRI scanner.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6854
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby davidm on October 23rd, 2018, 1:07 pm 

Even taking into account Hume’s problem of induction, there are three things wrong (in just 13 words!) with the following claim:

Believing it must come down because it "always" does in experiment is superstition.


It’s not a superstitious belief by definition (see above);

No one believes it must come down; or at any rate, no one should logically believe that. We believe it will come down. Confusing “must” with “will” is modal fallacy;

We do not believe it will come down because it “always” has in the past; or at any rate, we do not believe only because of that. We have a well-supported theory of gravity that prompts us to predict it will come down. This circumvents Hume’s problem. Of course it may be that the theory itself will break down at some point, but in that case, we look for new theories that explain prior successes while incorporating an explanation for the theoretical breakdown. That is how Einstein supplanted Newton.

Again, none of this has an iota of the supernatural in it.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 441
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby cladking on October 23rd, 2018, 4:01 pm 

If the stone doesn't come down for any reason it matters not one whit whether it would have or could only have come down. Yours is the semantical argument.

I am merely suggesting that the belief it can only come down or can only have come down is the supernatural component. I am suggesting that all human knowledge whether it's the diagnostic capabilities of an MRI or the propensity of stones to fall is held as belief and is unique to each individual. This is the way we think and no other animal does it.
cladking
Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 23 Jul 2010


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby davidm on October 23rd, 2018, 4:32 pm 

So my belief that a thing will come down if I toss it up means I believe in god or gods, ghosts, demons or whatnot? Well, I don't and so your claim is falsified.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 441
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby cladking on October 24th, 2018, 9:58 am 

davidm » October 23rd, 2018, 3:32 pm wrote:... believe in god or gods, ghosts, demons or whatnot?


You're trying to turn this into a dichotomy that does not exist; either you believe in the reality or what we call superstitions.

I'm suggesting that you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You're throwing out the reality along with every superstition ever dreamed up by man. You are replacing the reality with our current understanding of gravity (bending of spacetime?). Until you can show how and why objects cause spacetime to bend and define spacetime such as to know its boundaries your understanding is merely your own model of the reality disclosed by experiment.

I'm furthermore saying that it's for all practical purposes impossible to define "spacetime", "gravity", and any other word because of the nature of the language that forces us to study nature through experiment. Terms are defined in other terms that are equally impossible to define. We must use experiment because of the way language forces us to believe things and then we forget that we still hold experimental results and their interpretations as models of experiment.

You seem to think I'm somehow "anti-science" or "pro-religion" but nothing could be further from the truth.
cladking
Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 23 Jul 2010


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby davidm on October 24th, 2018, 10:14 am 

No, it's you who claimed that my belief that an object will come down after I toss it up is a superstitious belief. This just means, by definition, that I believe that the object coming down is a supernatural event -- something caused by gods, demons, ghosts, sprites, or whatever. I do not believe this, therefore, by definition, I do not have a superstitious belief. I don't even have to know anything about gravity or spacetime or Einstein or anything else; so long as I don't believe that the object comes down because of supernatural forces, then by definition I do not have a superstitious belief.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 441
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby cladking on October 24th, 2018, 10:23 am 


Consciousness is clearly more than awareness. In fact it seems tied to the ability to focus awareness. Consciousness seems to be the ability to recall your place in the world involving self awareness.

I like Daniel Dennett's approach to consciousness because it is pragmatic side stepping the "big questions". The pragmatists approach recognizes the limitations of our knowledge but also recognizes that what we do know provides fertile grounds for exploration. Pragmatism and empiricism are a good match for the current world.



Your post deserved more response than I gave it but it's very difficult to address because it is a couple levels removed from the premises to which I'm trying to address. Let me try just this;

"Awareness" is very much related to "consciousness" and you are using it as virtually a synonym. The problem is that consciousness is largely our understanding of "awareness" and we modern humans experience it entirely differently than animals and ancients. Animals experience "reality" directly as a manifestation of the wiring of the brain and logic of nature that manifests as this wiring. We act principally on beliefs and they act principally on experience. If they lack experience in any given case they usually have an instinct that takes over.

I don't know how a dog or an ancient experienced their consciousness. But I can describe many differences between them and us through simple deduction and modelling. Perhaps I could even start a thread on this forum related to the topic.

One of the biggest differences is that we tend to be able to see only what we know. A doctor looks at an MRI and sees diseases that might be cured while an engineer sees efficiencies that can be made in a redesign. A patient might see 15 minutes of anxiety or relaxation. A materials scientist might see the inside of the MRI and ways to dampen the noise. Animals and ancients primarily see anomalies. They preferentially see what they don't know and don't understand. It is this more than the power of ancient science that made the people so powerful and led to knowledge. It is a very pragmatic way for bees, beavers, and ancient humans to conduct a science. We can't see it because modern language and the beliefs it spawns mask the logic of nature.
cladking
Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 23 Jul 2010


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby Braininvat on October 24th, 2018, 11:50 am 

I don't know how a dog or an ancient experienced their consciousness. But I can describe many differences between them and us through simple deduction and modelling.


How do you do that, if language is so problematic and we define terms "in other terms that are equally impossible to define." ? Description relies upon precise and agreed terminology, doesn't it? One neuroscientist tells another, "When a person interprets a shape as being round, there is a sudden spike in the firing of D-fibers in the occipital cortex," and the other neuroscientist understands. How is that possible?

I could be wrong, but you appear to be casually dismissing the value of math and technical language without showing concrete examples that would demonstrate a knowledge of cognitive science.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6854
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby cladking on October 25th, 2018, 9:43 am 

Braininvat » October 24th, 2018, 10:50 am wrote:
How do you do that, if language is so problematic and we define terms "in other terms that are equally impossible to define." ?


Communication rarely fails utterly. When a message is relayed from one to another there is typically little change between any two speakers. The changes simply accumulate until the message becomes unrecognizable.

Description relies upon precise and agreed terminology, doesn't it? One neuroscientist tells another, "When a person interprets a shape as being round, there is a sudden spike in the firing of D-fibers in the occipital cortex," and the other neuroscientist understands. How is that possible?


The language of science is better defined and hence more likely to be understood among scientists but this hardly assures that everyone will take exactly the same meaning from a sentence.

I could be wrong, but you appear to be casually dismissing the value of math and technical language without showing concrete examples that would demonstrate a knowledge of cognitive science.


Not at all.

Reason and science are the only tools with which we can probe reality at this time. Experimental science is very much the only method we have to come to understand what exists and ourselves. Mathematics is the handmaiden of science and critical to its use if not its progress.

I am merely suggesting that there is another way to perform a different kind of science that is practiced by all living things except modern humans. I am suggesting that this other science might be adaptable to use in computers such that the two different sciences can be run in tandem. This isn't "philsophy" so much as it is about the fact people can't see this without seeing the nature of consciousness and metaphysics.
cladking
Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 23 Jul 2010


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby Brent696 on October 25th, 2018, 3:51 pm 

cladking » October 25th, 2018, 9:43 am

I am merely suggesting that there is another way to perform a different kind of science that is practiced by all living things except modern humans. I am suggesting that this other science might be adaptable to use in computers such that the two different sciences can be run in tandem. This isn't "philosophy" so much as it is about the fact people can't see this without seeing the nature of consciousness and metaphysics.


Well, we're over hear in Philosophical now, and the fact that communication possesses limits is a forgone conclusion as even mathematical formulas in physics can be seen through the eyes of differing contexts by different physicists, I find myself interested perhaps in this "Different kind of science" you are referring to.

"Consciousness", as normally thought of by most people, probably lies closer to cognitive awareness, as if a person who is injured is defined as conscious or unconscious. Some might see consciousness as merely an effect of neuro-chemical activity, but even physics seems to be pointing back some to the metaphysical roots of consciousness as it seems to be a major player in the foundational properties of the universe. Basically consciousness seems to effect reality itself simply through its observational qualities.

A short overview again from my POV, even as I equate consciousness with "Life", so that consciousness might be viewed as an underlying "energy", or perhaps "information" that permeates through the cosmos. My best analogy is that of a quantum field wave, one which not only has driven the formation of life on the planet lets say, but can also be seen as tapped into by each level of complexity from the single cell to the human brain.

Obviously the human brain has reached a level of complexity that allows, in much the same way a particle is said to arise from a ground wave once a certain level of energy has been introduced, so with a certain amount of complexity in the neuro-chemical structuring of the human brain, one reaches a higher level of awareness than say animals, which would of course have greater access than cells.

So Life, as an energetic force, manifesting in higher levels of complexity (more information), is seen what we consider to be consciousness, even as single cells would be conscious, but at a much reduced level.

So I wanted to lay this out Clad as this is the frame of reference I would consider your viewpoint from,

Your "different kind of science" seemed ambiguous, perhaps you did not mean it so as I might be suffering one of those communication tweaks, your comment (2000 BC) seemed to hinge on something, and I would assess a change in humankind a couple thousand years prior but I was also wondering at what you see as the catalyst for this turning point of yours. Interested in where you are coming from.
User avatar
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 223
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Postby cladking on October 25th, 2018, 4:22 pm 

Brent696 » October 25th, 2018, 2:51 pm wrote:
Well, we're over hear in Philosophical now, and the fact that communication possesses limits is a forgone conclusion as even mathematical formulas in physics can be seen through the eyes of differing contexts by different physicists, I find myself interested perhaps in this "Different kind of science" you are referring to.


It's very much something I've been working on my whole life and has had a great influence in the direction I've taken. Pretty much I gave up on artificial intelligence very very early because, well, I don't believe intelligence exists at all so an artificial form of it would be meaningless. Consciousness often displays cleverness but this is an event and not a condition.

To envision this other science one must look at it from another direction. We use confused language so we must peek at reality in experiment but computers are very proficient at raw logic. What is needed isn't for computers to parse modern language but rather for them use a program that reflects reality. Animal science and Ancient Language do this in a biological medium but there's absolutely no reason this can't be done in silicon. Ancient Language is no longer suitable for humans because science has become far too complex and it was complexity that killed ancient science the first time around. Metaphysical language becomes geometrically more complex as knowledge increases arithmatically. But computers can already handle complexity orders of magnitude greater than Ancient Language.

I would format the language quite similarly to the formatting of Ancient Language. What we call "laws of nature" would be defined as their individual effects on other things or what the ancients called "naming the animals" or just naming things. Indeed, much of the data base should be able to be completed by the computer.

I don't know how to program this or what machine intelligence would actually look like. It's going to take time to do this but it should be able to run this logic based science concurrently with experimental science so they can help each other over the humps.
cladking
Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 23 Jul 2010


PreviousNext

Return to Fringe theories and speculations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests