[Prometheus The Supremo]

What is your consciousness?

awareness? how my mind interacts with the natural world? the state of being non-unconscious?

 

[GenerationW]

p.s, there's astronomers that reject the big bang theory? let me guess, do they believe the world is only a few thousand years old? and that the grand canyon was carved out by the great flood in which noah built an ark?

No, there are actual astronomers who dispute the big bang theory, minority though they are. Not saying I necessarily believe them, but this book has quite the provocative title, though I thought the authour did a better job of throwing doubt on big bang than pushing his own plasma theory.

And this is an interesting read, as the anti-big bangers complain that the big bangers control all the funding and research, and aren't interested in true science ("in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated").

Politics in science? Say it isn't so!

 

[GenerationW]

What about the overwhelming evidence suggesting that earth is one of what is probably thousands or millions of planets capable of sustaining life do you not believe in? I'm curious what is driving this disbelief... is it religion? Do you truly think that our planet is so privileged as to be the only one that actually sustains life out of at least billions of other planets? It's like a weather cast indicating a 99% chance of rain, yet you are certain there won't be rain... what leads you to think otherwise?

I'm not religious.

Capable (of), and actually sustaining life are two different things, and as of now, Earth is the only planet we know of that actually sustains life. And while many "Earth-like" planets have been identified, there is no accepted consensus that millions, thousands, or even one other planet is definitely capable of sustaining life. According to WIKI:

The existence of such life is theoretical and all assertions about it remain disputed.

I have no idea if we're privileged but I do believe we're alone (until and unless proven otherwise).

I've never come across a prediction that there is a 99% chance of extraterrestrial life. Care to break scientific new ground?

 

[GenerationW]

They don't have to be vocal, shouting it from the rooftops, trying to indoctrinate others, convert them to their beliefs. Respect for others' life choices, what each individual decides he or she wants to precieve as real and as the truth, is the right course of action. If persecution is what keeps atheists silent then the onus is on theists to make them feel welcomed, not the other way around.

Just saying atheists might want to market themselves better.

It has, the organisms that created those fossils in the Martian meteorite discovered in Antarctica.

Totally speculative.

Religion cannot explain life in a rational, tangible way. Science can because protein synthesis of naturally occuring chemicals has been conducted successfully in labs from the 1950s onwards.

Science might have something close to a monopoly explaining the physical aspect of life but there is tons of competition trying to account for the spiritual/emotional aspect.

Religion warps minds, just as any dogma can. It's indecipherable to tell what motivations drove the heads of state or leaders of militias to war. That's for political scientists to figure out. But many, many dictators have used religious belief as a coercive tool, as a motivator, as a cause reason why the citizenry should risk their lives. This is documented fact. So-called secular wars that you may cite in response to this only harken right back to religion in just about every circumstance. Remember that a mind susceptiable to indoctrination most likely was preconditioned to be that way from early childhood exposure to religion even if they no longer practice it as an adult.

Oh please! Many of the greatest mass killings in history occurred in the 20th century under a system that was explicitly atheist. No one has clean hands.

Kids as easy marks sounds like a good conspiracy, but these day more people today tend to "get religion" later in life than get indoctrinated into it at a young age.

Why the mockery?

Brings me joy.

True, I will give you that. Many people are scared of death and cling to the hope of an afterlife through devotion as a means of preserving themselves. However so much time is wasted believing in something that might amount to nothing that they forget to appreciate the one certain life that they do have, to appreciate all those around them whatever their life choices may be, to appreciate the beauty of the outdoors and not the confines of manmade places of worship. To say that these people are living fulfilled, happy lives through their faith is questionable.

To say that anyone is happy living their lives through anything is open to question. All depends who's doing the questioning.

Religion may not stop working for people but tell me, what is religion anyway? When one obsesses over their favorite sports team or rock band, is that not a form of devotion and worship? When one marries are they not devoted to that other person more than others? Religion like all things is random and subjective, and so is the belief in nothing. Humanity doesn't really need to know where we came from or where we're going, only that we're here and very second spent preoccupied with these questions only subtracts from us living out our known existences.

If we didn't spend so much time contemplating our existence and impending death, it's entirely possible that religion never would have existed. But we do, and religion has been a feature throughout recorded history. I don't think it's going away.

 

[gristle]

awareness? how my mind interacts with the natural world? the state of being non-unconscious?

But what is it? How does it work? What is a "state of consciousness?" This is, after all, what you experience the world with. If you can't explain its functioning in detail you can't automatically assume a perfect interplay with every aspect of the world around you. Without that type of understanding, you really don't know how you know.

And what's with the distinction of the "natural" world? Your consciousness is natural - unless you are now appealing to something extra-natural.


Say it ain't so Prometheus!

 

[wonderboy416]

Hence, we cannot have a correct understanding of anything without having a complete understanding of everything. Therefore, the picture is not getting more complete and, even if we live outside of our constructed worlds, humans are incapable of coming up with an objective understanding of any part of the universe.

So then, to all these scientists studying the cosmos with the goal of stitching together the big picture... and to all those evolutionary biologists with a similar goal in mind, what's the purpose of their work? We all know in some cases tremendous good has come from it. If our understanding is so flawed, why is it so useful? Why is it still pursued? Why do some scientists state with great authority a contrasting argument to your own? What you are stating is in effect an opinion (no matter how commonly believed, it is just that, and only that), and perhaps it is on the basis that it cannot be proven wrong that you state it so profoundly. We certainly have a profound understanding of the evolutionary process, so to state that nothing has been clarified in the past century is beyond the point of absurdity to me.

On my planet, the history of technological development is far older than any formalized practice of science.

Up until the industrial revolution I'd agree with you, but since then the vast majority of man-kind's technological breakthroughs have come on the heels of a lot of profound scientific work. The nuclear reactor to name one that would not be possible otherwise.

If the body of knowledge applies to anything other than human beings, what could that possibly be?

Whether or not if its within the range of the human capacity to understand or not, I think Prometheus hit the nail on the head with his example.
Things would be as they may if you were to remove humans, our understanding of them would apply just as well to any other impartial observer. You believe otherwise, that's fine, I believe there is no supernatural factor (or otherwise which I agree may be proven, but could never be disproved) that us humans are missing and are able to accurately describe the true nature of many things. It's a never-ending debate since neither side can prove the other wrong, one is backed up by empirical evidence, the other dismisses it on the basis that it's only being interpreted by and classified by what it deems to be human constructs which are claimed to be inherently flawed.

If you could, please provide an accurate and objective description for the taste of garlic - one that can be measured.

Although not for me... I think this is not possible as not all humans perceive taste to be the same. However unless we suffer some sort of impairment each unit of measurement is exactly the same for all people... 1km will be measured as 1km. There is a marked difference between matters of a subjective nature and those that aren't.

I have no idea if we're privileged but I do believe we're alone (until and unless proven otherwise).

I've never come across a prediction that there is a 99% chance of extraterrestrial life. Care to break scientific new ground?

Granted, there are some extremely optimistic astronomers out there who I used as the basis of my 99% figure. Every time we peer into a star closely enough we see a wobble which symbolizes the gravitational pull of surrounding planets. With our limited technology, when given a closer look we've detected planets at almost every star where the conditions are present for us to detect them. That's not to say that there aren't false positives or planet-less stars... If you calculate the probability of billions of stars with each one surrounded by at least a couple of planets... you'd be hard pressed not to think there'd be something, even if it's just a single cell structure out there. Oil companies are willing to invest millions on large oil rigs going on far shakier data and assumptions in some instances (not all).

Science might have something close to a monopoly explaining the physical aspect of life but there is tons of competition trying to account for the spiritual/emotional aspect.

Sure, and there's tons of people that read their horoscopes, seek homepathic based cures, have their fortune told etc etc... that doesn't make it legitimate.

Oh please! Many of the greatest mass killings in history occurred in the 20th century under a system that was explicitly atheist. No one has clean hands.

But can you prove that atheism was a motivating cause? It's yet to be done.
One only needs to open up a newspaper to see the travesty that religion is still causing on a daily basis.

If we didn't spend so much time contemplating our existence and impending death, it's entirely possible that religion never would have existed. But we do, and religion has been a feature throughout recorded history. I don't think it's going away.

I fully agree with you, that still doesn't give it a shred of credibility.

But what is it? How does it work? What is a "state of consciousness?" This is, after all, what you experience the world with. If you can't explain its functioning in detail you can't automatically assume a perfect interplay with every aspect of the world around you. Without that type of understanding, you really don't know how you know.

We're not too far off from replicating consciousness with the concept of free-will. We come pre-programed from birth with a lot of information already inside our brain... while we can't pinpoint consciousness yet, there's little doubt that it's a functioning feature of the brain itself.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

But what is it? How does it work? What is a "state of consciousness?" This is, after all, what you experience the world with. If you can't explain its functioning in detail you can't automatically assume a perfect interplay with every aspect of the world around you. Without that type of understanding, you really don't know how you know.

And what's with the distinction of the "natural" world? Your consciousness is natural - unless you are now appealing to something extra-natural.


Say it ain't so Prometheus!

i said:

awareness? how my mind interacts with the natural world? the state of being non-unconscious?

i meant natural world as opposed to imaginary world. i shouldn't have used the term natural world because hallucination and imagination is also part of consciousness. but in my defence, i meant that how the mind interacts with the natural world is just a part of consciousness, not the totality of it excluding everything else.

of course, in regards to consciousness, there are probably dictionary definitions, medical definitions, legal definitions, etc. that may differ.

personally, i can't explain how consciousness fully works or why it exists.


also, i think this thread is starting to get strange. if someone believes nothing is true or false, real or not, better or worse, just because we can't disprove that existence is a dream or something and because of this, a psychic grabbing a goats balls to tell you your future is just as credible or true as a scientific theory, well, for starters, i'd hate to see what kind of decisions you make in your life.

 

[wonderboy416]

if someone believes nothing is true or false, real or not, better or worse, just because we can't disprove that existence is a dream or something and because of this, a psychic grabbing a goats balls to tell you your future is just as credible or true as a scientific theory, well, for starters, i'd hate to see what kind of decisions you make in your life.

very well said! I envy your skills of articulation

 

[gristle]

also, i think this thread is starting to get strange. if someone believes nothing is true or false, real or not, better or worse, just because we can't disprove that existence is a dream or something and because of this, a psychic grabbing a goats balls to tell you your future is just as credible or true as a scientific theory, well, for starters, i'd hate to see what kind of decisions you make in your life.

I agree that aspects of the thread are getting strange, but probably for different reasons than your own.

What is interesting here is that the strong adherents to scientism like you and wonderboy seem to cling to notions of truth so very strongly - even when faced with the fact that something as essential as human consciousness is not at all understood - by anyone. We live with the fact that while we can know things, we do not know of how or why we can know them - or if what we know in any way conforms to some form of "truth" (whatever that is). In short, that immediately sets us up for a considerable degree of doubt regarding what can be known. We have no clue regarding the margins of our perceptive limitations, and we have no idea of just how extensive these limitations are or how far they range. The point here is that these limitations inevitably restrict what we can know. Add to that, we can never have more perception that what our consciousness offers us, so that also means that there will always be limits on what can be known (we don't know what we don't know). That fact essentially forever limits the idea of obtaining "truth" in any extravagant sense of what we pretend to know regarding the meaning of that word. It even curtails the notion of certainty. The best we can do is to possess limited, tentative knowledge that is based on a shared range of rules of measurement and language that is shared among people, and both of these are limited by uncertainty. You may view this as an attack on what you believe to be the purpose of science, but in actual fact it is a gift that scientific philosophy has provided to humanity: no one can argue from a position of possessing or having access to absolute truth. There is no way to prove such a position. All knowledge is tentative.

i meant natural world as opposed to imaginary world

Given that imagination is presumed to be a product of the "natural" mind, are they not the same? I could also ask you to clarify the concept of "natural" in regard to comparing that to something else. In other words, what is natural, and where does something not natural exist? It is you, after all, who has raised a distinction.

personally, i can't explain how consciousness fully works or why it exists.

As mentioned earlier, no one knows. That presents numerous problems when pursuing a line of reasoning that something that is essential to the notion of "being" is a producer of truths - all the while that this source of being (understanding, comprehending) is not actually understood. It presents a profound limit on knowledge, and that should be accepted.

of course, in regards to consciousness, there are probably dictionary definitions, medical definitions, legal definitions, etc. that may differ.

You are missing the point. A dictionary definition of consciousness is not consciousness. While we experience a thing we call consciousness, we have no idea of what it is. No one knows what consciousness is. The definitions are, at best, tentative and superficial stand-ins to a major problem of uncertainty. The word explains nothing about the actual phenomena. Definitions such as these are a way of providing meaning where there actually is none. That approach writ large has a parallel to cosmologies where people create or imagine structures in order to give meaning to the universe. In many ways, scientific cosmology is no different - simply because we don't know anything regarding the full extent, structure or fundamental nature of the entire universe. We operate on assumptions that it is rationale based on a range examples, but we have no absolute proof that the universe conforms to that notion in every way. Add to that, the problem is amplified further once one moves from how to why (and once again, these very questions can be viewed as human-imposed strictures in and of themselves).

Even if human beings can one day understand consciousness - and can even artificially replicate it - there are still the inherent limitations of perception to deal with when considering what can be further understood or comprehended by such an act.

if someone believes nothing is true or false, real or not, better or worse, just because we can't disprove that existence is a dream or something and because of this, a psychic grabbing a goats balls to tell you your future is just as credible or true as a scientific theory, well, for starters, i'd hate to see what kind of decisions you make in your life

Anyone who deludes himself into thinking that he has some unobstructed access to the truth via science really is no better than the religious promulgators of the same idea. Scientific theories are operational, they are not truths. Obviously some forms of knowledge are more useful in certain circumstances than others, but this does not mean that the body of knowledge then automatically represents an unassailable form of truth (because you still would have to fully clarify the concept). Maybe you simply dislike the idea that you can never have access to the certainty or truth you promote. I think it to be more of a failing to actually examine the limits of those concepts in greater detail. That you continue to toss around science in some supra-human fashion (as in the knowledge somehow being separate from the practitioners or user) is itself telling. Scientific knowledge doesn't just drop on our heads from out of the sky; people "do" science. Ultimately, it's the only way the stuff can make sense to us. The fact is that scientific knowledge (all knowledge, really) is a degree of order, language and values that we impose, and as such, the imposed language ordering and values used to explain phenomena are products that are always open to questioning and updating. There is knowing, but there is no truth.

I can both accept the products of scientific knowledge while at the same time recognizing the profound limits that define what this approach to knowledge can offer. I recognize and respect the fact that this approach can only come through human perception and human consciousness. There is no "special" knowledge out there to access - no matter what you want you want to think. People live life every day without ever knowing what the next moment will bring, so we all navigate our existence within a cloud or profound uncertainty. We can only know things tentatively, but we can never know things absolutely and "truly."

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

We can only know things tentatively, but we can never know things absolutely and "truly."

never? are you sure? that seems like an absolute position.


and please don't take my words out of context or make assumptions about me. science is not my religion. i have admitted that there is uncertainty because i can't prove an indeterminate amount of things false, just like how i leave open the possibility that there could be a god because it can't be proven that throughout all of existence or time, or even outside of that, that god doesn't exist.

if i can't even say that it would be true that if i were to jump into a fire, i would get burned because there is always a possibility that the fire may not exist or i may not exist, how can a debate? and even if i were to come up with an explanation for consciousness, it would be argued that language is just a human construct and therefore does not have the capacity to make known what consciousness really is because my explanation is limited to a human explanation. but how can i even make such a statement? how do i know? i may not know anything, you may not know anything, we all might not know anything. what is anything?

so lets please stop debating because nothing may be certain. you do know what it means to stop right? of course you may not because that would imply certainty. but how can i be so sure?

 

[gristle]

never? are you sure? that seems like an absolute position.

If you are stuck in an either/or scenario then I guess you will see it that way. But it's safe to compare my position to thoughts on the idea of infinity. The concept simply stands in for something that can never be known.

and please don't take my words out of context or make assumptions about me. science is not my religion. i have admitted that there is uncertainty because i can't prove an indeterminate amount of things false, just like how i leave open the possibility that there could be a god because it can't be proven that throughout all of existence or time, or even outside of that, that god doesn't exist.

I go by what you post here. Clearly you don't like to be challenged - feeling that this somehow is an attack on you. However, try to make a distinction between yourself and the arguments you post here.

just like how i leave open the possibility that there could be a god because it can't be proven that throughout all of existence or time, or even outside of that, that god doesn't exist.

That makes you an agnostic.

so lets please stop debating because nothing may be certain. you do know what it means to stop right? of course you may not because that would imply certainty. but how can i be so sure?

You can stop debating if you like.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

If you are stuck in an either/or scenario then I guess you will see it that way. But it's safe to compare my position to thoughts on the idea of infinity. The concept simply stands in for something that can never be known.



I go by what you post here. Clearly you don't like to be challenged - feeling that this somehow is an attack on you. However, try to make a distinction between yourself and the arguments you post here.



That makes you an agnostic.



You can stop debating if you like.

it's not that i don't like to be challenged (well, maybe except for physically challenged, that i don't like) but i can't possibly make any arguments for reasons i explained before. and yes, i'm agnostic but i am also an atheist since i don't believe in god. we've addressed that issue already i think.

maybe in the end, we could just say that everything is a belief or disbelief because there might be no way to verify anything. but for practical reasons, i will continue to say that something is true or untrue, real or not, etc. it just makes life easier.

 

[afransen]

gristle: the brain in a jar idea is a fun thought experiment, but utterly useless as a organizing philosophy of how you lead your life. I'd say it's basically impossible to live a life claiming that you can never be certain of anything. Why eat? You can't be certain your hunger is real, the food you're going to eat is real, etc. I say, step away from the thought experiment and let's eat.

 

[gristle]

If you read what I have written you know that this is not what I am saying. My posts are clear regarding notions that have been argued regarding truth and certainty as ultimate values.

 

[wonderboy416]

If you read what I have written you know that this is not what I am saying. My posts are clear regarding notions that have been argued regarding truth and certainty as ultimate values.

Why does it only apply to "ultimate" values?
How are they any different than afransen's example? Just because they're on a grander scale? How does that make your point more or less valid?