Religious scientists... an example of 'Doublethink'

[grover]

If this is possible sometime in the future i think it would be a complete paradigm shift. Youd be looking at something way beyond science.

And that is a very big "if." You would basically be talking about the subjective becoming objective. I don't even know what that would mean.

 

[heliocentric]

Consciousness is tricky as hell to discuss and interpret i (think) thats what grover is getting at.
You can of course argue that - i am conscious therefore other humans must be conscious, although alot of people would still take issue with that. Especially in philosophy.
Personally im happy with assuming/deducting that other humans share the same kind of interiority as i do, but that's just me.

I think when it does start to genuinely break down thoughs is when you try to define the consciousness of non-similar life forms.
Are ants conscious? is a slug? is a flower conscious? what about quantum particles?
It starts to get difficult because you get to a point where you cant comprehend that state of existance or being.
All you can do is judge consciousness on the basis of observed self-agency and the ability to exchange information.
What you cant of course ever do is observe how a different sort of life form interprets information.
When a shark smells a tiny drop of blood in a ocean, lord knows how that actually translates as a visceral experience in the shark's mind.
You can apply the same to Dolphins - we know they use sonar to 'feel out' their surroundings but we can only guess at the picture (if any) this creates in dolphin's mind.
Untill you can inhabit the others experience, we cant really know any of these things.

 

[heliocentric]

And that is a very big "if." You would basically be talking about the subjective becoming objective. I don't even know what that would mean.

I dont know either, it would be pretty zen though

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy, three things.
1) When you are saying something is self-evident what you are saying is that you know something by direct experience for which no further proof can be provided. You know you have consciousness but you can not prove to another human that you really are conscious and not really a very sophisticated computer.

I can provide an instance of myself and therefore prove that I am not a sophisticated computer. Communicating with me and observing me would show that I exhibit conscious behavior.

2) When people have an NDE they say it was self-evident that they were conscious after death.

They are confusing being conscious after death with being conscious while dying.

Since we currently have no way of measuring consciousness we can not simply dismiss these experiences based upon the fact that no objective evidence can be provided to prove their existence or non-existence since we all know that we are conscious but can provide no third person evidence of that fact.

We know that the human brain hallcinates. We know that the human brain doesn't operate correctly while dying. We know that all NDE's that have been tested for validity in the operating room have failed. Therefore we know that NDE's are hallucinatory.

Mere appearances do not prove one is conscious. Take people in a persistent vegatative state for example...some people viewing the person will swear they are consciously responding to stimuli. Other people will say they are really a zombie and merely appear to be conscious. There is currently no way to know objectivey if someone is conscious or not.

This is very true. Appearances don't prove consciousness. 3rd party behavior does and 1st person experience does. In the case of being conscious in a vegetative state, humans lack the technology to detect the presence of that consciousness.

3) Science basically does not work when it comes to subjective experience. This does not mean subjective experience does not exist (since we all know it does).

It merely means that science doesn't work with the phenomenon pertaining to subjective experience. Therefore dismissing all first-person claims based upon the abscence of objective (third-person) evidence is nonsense. And therefore, much to the chagrin of scientific fundamentalists, it leaves open the possibility of phenomenon which has traditionally been ascribed to the sphere of "spiritual."

It's not a limitation of science to measure the subjective. It's a limitation of human knowledge and technology. I don't think anyone dismisses the existence of fantastic subjective experience. What does get dismissed is that the experience occured objectively "as is". The reason is that there would be objective evidence to back up such claims and there is not. Take for example this fella:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61066

Clearly with a 'God' living inside his brain and sharing knowledge with him, he should be able to objectively demonstrate his claim with a vastly superior knowledge base. He does not and he cannot because he is really schizophrenic. I can go through the parapsychology and religion forums and easily categorize all objective claims into some combination of hallucination and delusion. I think people often forget that fantastic objective claimers are not the only ones to have fantastic subjective experiences. I have personally had so many that I know how accurately reality test the experience and its really quite effortless. Many people can do this and are able to completely distinguish between reality and fantasy and for whatever reasons many cannot or don't want to.

Regardless, I predict that at some point technology will be able to completely expose the subjective experience. For $19.95 you'll be able to download an interactive mind program to teach you how to draw. In technicolor with Real(tm) sensory feedback.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Consciousness is tricky as hell to discuss and interpret i (think) thats what grover is getting at.
You can of course argue that - i am conscious therefore other humans must be conscious, although alot of people would still take issue with that. Especially in philosophy.

Fortunately science tests against reality whereas philosophy doesn't

I think when it does start to genuinely break down thoughs is when you try to define the consciousness of non-similar life forms.
Are ants conscious? is a slug? is a flower conscious? what about quantum particles?

It starts to get difficult because you get to a point where you cant comprehend that state of existance or being.
All you can do is judge consciousness on the basis of observed self-agency and the ability to exchange information.
What you cant of course ever do is observe how a different sort of life form interprets information.
When a shark smells a tiny drop of blood in a ocean, lord knows how that actually translates as a visceral experience in the shark's mind.
You can apply the same to Dolphins - we know they use sonar to 'feel out' their surroundings but we can only guess at the picture (if any) this creates in dolphin's mind.

Yep, its a tricky thing allright. At the same time we should not let the challenges hamper the application of existing knowledge. We know that conscious entities tend to have emotional motivation, can detect 'self' from 'other', can detect threats and opportunities, can communicate, and can learn.

Untill you can inhabit the others experience, we cant really know any of these things.

You might be right... and you might not

 

[heliocentric]

Fortunately science tests against reality whereas philosophy doesn't

Not really sure what you mean by that exactly, philosophy is the dissection of reality just as science is.
Although obviously the methodology within both disciplines is very different.

Yep, its a tricky thing allright. At the same time we should not let the challenges hamper the application of existing knowledge. We know that conscious entities tend to have emotional motivation, can detect 'self' from 'other', can detect threats and opportunities, can communicate, and can learn.

Yeah you can definitely create a sort of check-list of consciousness, although noone seems to ever quite agree on the specific criteria -
i.e. by adding or subtracting just one quantity say 'emotionality' you can effectively end up including or excluding a whole range of entities/events which may or may not be conscious.
Im still really in the processes of atempting to understand consciousness myself - hopefully at some stage i will be able to work from my own set of criteria. Although for now, its a process of weighing up validity of every possible interpretation.

I can go through the parapsychology and religion forums and easily categorize all objective claims into some combination of hallucination and delusion.
I think people often forget that fantastic objective claimers are not the only ones to have fantastic subjective experiences.

I agree with your conclusion regarding the chap with 'God' in his head. Although i think youre being a tad over-zealous, well 'very' over-zealous in claiming that everything that falls in the parapsychology or religious forums can be dismissed as hallucination.
The odds are very probable that in many instances there is sometimes something objective going on (see sprites, st.elmo's fire) we just dont know what it is yet.
Its way too easy to box out anything unexplained as 'fantastic' and look at reportees as these phenomena with crossed eyes.
As i said earlier i think its a hell of alot more rational to hand in an inconclusive verdict in certain situations than to tell everyone who experiences anything, ever, outside of scientifc knowledge that theyre simply having a hallucination.
Again, i really believe that type of thinking is rooted in an sort of unshifting idealism of science being an absolute/complete framework.
Anything that falls outside of science ergo - must not exist.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Not really sure what you mean by that exactly, philosophy is the dissection of reality just as science is.
Although obviously the methodology within both disciplines is very different.

I mean when a hypothesis is raised, science tests the hypothesis against reality whereas philosophy tests it against feelings and / or desires.

Yeah you can definitely create a sort of check-list of consciousness, although noone seems to ever quite agree on the specific criteria -
i.e. by adding or subtracting just one quantity say 'emotionality' you can effectively end up including or excluding a whole range of entities/events which may or may not be conscious.

It might be the case that consciousness is not possible without specific qualities.

Im still really in the processes of atempting to understand consciousness myself - hopefully at some stage i will be able to work from my own set of criteria. Although for now, its a process of weighing up validity of every possible interpretation.

Good luck

 

[heliocentric]

I mean when a hypothesis is raised, science tests the hypothesis against reality whereas philosophy tests it against feelings and / or desires.

Hmm not sure you understand what philosophy is tbh - philosophy these days is more about creating a hypothesis, which can (at some point) then be tested by scientists.
For instance if you look at the ground being broken in A.I. and neuroscience i think youd get a better picture of the working relationship between science and philosophy as it currently exists.
Its all based on real, methodical experimentation - of course you could argue that alot of the conclusions drawn within philosophy are based in desire/feelings. But you could just as well say the same thing about modern science, 'many worlds theory' anyone?

Good luck

thanks! just a case of trying to force myself to read very dull books on my lunch breaks at work atm. Lot of ground to cover

 

[ggazoo]

I don't think science and religion are at odds at all; I think that science is simply too young to understand. The day will come when science won't be debunking religion, but explaining it.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Hmm not sure you understand what philosophy is tbh - philosophy these days is more about creating a hypothesis, which can (at some point) then be tested by scientists.
For instance if you look at the ground being broken in A.I. and neuroscience i think youd get a better picture of the working relationship between science and philosophy as it currently exists.
Its all based on real, methodical experimentation - of course you could argue that alot of the conclusions drawn within philosophy are based in desire/feelings. But you could just as well say the same thing about modern science, 'many worlds theory' anyone?

Well its good to hear that philosophy might be 'contributing' in some fashion, but regardless of where it resides, something ultimately gets pit against desire / feelings with philosophy. While scientists may pit things against desire / feelings, science itself is agnostic to that.

 

[heliocentric]

hehe well thats a whole other thread in itself almost isnt it, how far down the path of 'objectivity' is science actually leading us?
post-feminists argue that science is defined by its 'maleness' - i.e. we have gender-centric view of the world - we're simply aquiring truths that mearly suit our predisposed tastes.
Yes reality always will be reality, and only that can be measured.
But it all comes down to which questions you ask, and how you interpret the answers once youre in possesion of them.
Theres still only really a thin slither of objectivity going on sandwiched between alot of buzzing subjectivity.

 

[grover]

I can provide an instance of myself and therefore prove that I am not a sophisticated computer. Communicating with me and observing me would show that I exhibit conscious behavior.

That's just it though. You can't prove to me you are actually conscious. You could just be a very sophisticated computer. Or intelligent zombie thatconsciousness.

They are confusing being conscious after death with being conscious while dying.

How do you know?

We know that the human brain hallcinates.
We know that the human brain doesn't operate correctly while dying. We know that all NDE's that have been tested for validity in the operating room have failed. Therefore we know that NDE's are hallucinatory.

No we don't know that. You just selectively look at the ones that have failed. I've personally never heard of a person having an NDE that was shown objective evidence that showed what they said was wrong. I have read many cases where the doctors or nurses said "they couldn't have possibly known that."

This is very true. Appearances don't prove consciousness. 3rd party behavior does and 1st person experience does.

3rd party behavior doesn't. Are ants conscious? Ants do many very intelligent things like farming aphids? Yet we have no way of knowing if they have subjective experience or are just little unconscious automatons

In the case of being conscious in a vegetative state, humans lack the technology to detect the presence of that consciousness.

Humans lack any means whatsoever to detect consciousness except through direct experience.

It's not a limitation of science to measure the subjective.

Of course it is. We can't so it at this time. W have no idea how to go about doing it. Maybe at some point down the road this will all be cleared up, or maybe science has limitations.

It's a limitation of human knowledge and technology. I don't think anyone dismisses the existence of fantastic subjective experience.

I'm not talking about fantastic subjective experience exclusively. I'm talking more generally about the general nature of conscious experience and science's limitations at this time and for the foreseeable future. Are you suggesting that people ignore their subjective experience because it can't be verified by science? That's as insane as anything I've heard a fundamentalist preacher say.

What does get dismissed is that the experience occured objectively "as is". The reason is that there would be objective evidence to back up such claims and there is not.

I'm not saying there are no experiences that clearly are delusion. I am saying it is possible that there are experiences which may be valid insights which can't merely be dismissed because science can't provide objective evidence of it, because at this time science can't provide objective evidence even of consciousness itself, yet we all know it is a real phenomenon.

Take for example this fella:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61066


Clearly with a 'God' living inside his brain and sharing knowledge with him, he should be able to objectively demonstrate his claim with a vastly superior knowledge base. He does not and he cannot because he is really schizophrenic. I can go through the parapsychology and religion forums and easily categorize all objective claims into some combination of hallucination and delusion. I think people often forget that fantastic objective claimers are not the only ones to have fantastic subjective experiences. I have personally had so many that I know how accurately reality test the experience and its really quite effortless. Many people can do this and are able to completely distinguish between reality and fantasy and for whatever reasons many cannot or don't want to.

Again, I haven't ever said that people are incapable of delusion. In fact, it seems to me that delusion is the mind creating something which isn't there. Funny how buddhists say that normal people live in delusion because they've invented a self that doesn't really exist.

Regardless, I predict that at some point technology will be able to completely expose the subjective experience. For $19.95 you'll be able to download an interactive mind program to teach you how to draw. In technicolor with Real(tm) sensory feedback.

You've got alot of faith.

 

[grover]

Helio,
Have you read any good philosophy books on consciousness that you'd recommend? And hopefully aren't dull as hell

 

[S.A.M.]

Helio,
Have you read any good philosophy books on consciousness that you'd recommend? And hopefully aren't dull as hell

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

Or you can read this instead:

http://www.online-literature.com/hesse/siddhartha/

 

[Crunchy Cat]

That's just it though. You can't prove to me you are actually conscious. You could just be a very sophisticated computer. Or intelligent zombie thatconsciousness..

We don't have the technology for that type of computing power and zombies don't exist.

How do you know?

Many hospitals whom routinely stop people's hearts have set up computer montiors that face upwards showing several distinct pictures... in clear view of an OOBE'er floating overhead. Many people have claimed OOBE's with full visuals / floating overhead / etc. Not a single one has seen the obvious pictures; however, it appears sometimes they correctly hear things that are said. It seems the brain does a little reality simulation under that type of duress (similar to dreaming / hypnogogia) and might combine a little bit of external information (ex. sound) into the hallucination.

However, before hospitals starting doing this I already knew. There is no evidence that consciousness persists after death. Not a single dead person has communicated with the living. It's simple really.

No we don't know that. You just selectively look at the ones that have failed. I've personally never heard of a person having an NDE that was shown objective evidence that showed what they said was wrong. I have read many cases where the doctors or nurses said "they couldn't have possibly known that."

I am not disputing audio. Dying people whom are conscious can apparently hear things sometimes. It's the floating overhead as some kind of disembodies soul that is utterly hallucinatory... and proven to be so via those hospital experiments.

3rd party behavior doesn't. Are ants conscious? Ants do many very intelligent things like farming aphids? Yet we have no way of knowing if they have subjective experience or are just little unconscious automatons

They can distinguish self from other, friend from foe, are emotionally motivated, can remember (not sure what their learning capacity is). They seem to be conscious.

Humans lack any means whatsoever to detect consciousness except through direct experience.

And behavioral observation.

Of course it is. We can't so it at this time. W have no idea how to go about doing it. Maybe at some point down the road this will all be cleared up, or maybe science has limitations.

Knowledge and technology limitation... not science... that's just a process.

I'm not talking about fantastic subjective experience exclusively. I'm talking more generally about the general nature of conscious experience and science's limitations at this time and for the foreseeable future. Are you suggesting that people ignore their subjective experience because it can't be verified by science? That's as insane as anything I've heard a fundamentalist preacher say.

I would suggest that if people 'expereince' angels, devils, demons, spirits, etc. and lack the ability to tell if its real or not then they should get some video cameras to help themselves understand rather than going off on wild claims.

I'm not saying there are no experiences that clearly are delusion. I am saying it is possible that there are experiences which may be valid insights which can't merely be dismissed because science can't provide objective evidence of it, because at this time science can't provide objective evidence even of consciousness itself, yet we all know it is a real phenomenon.

Jesus H. Christ. Science is a tool. It's a freakin' process and NOTHING MORE. Consciousness is SELF EVIDENT. In other words the 'what' is there and people are using science to understand the 'how' / 'why'. You cannot really apply science to a 'what' that is non-existent... there has to be something 'real' to study.

Again, I haven't ever said that people are incapable of delusion. In fact, it seems to me that delusion is the mind creating something which isn't there. Funny how buddhists say that normal people live in delusion because they've invented a self that doesn't really exist.

Every single person on the planet is delusional in some way or another. The 'God' delusion unfortunately is the highest impacting one of them all.

You've got alot of faith.

Speculation doesn't require faith.

 

[heliocentric]

Helio,
Have you read any good philosophy books on consciousness that you'd recommend? And hopefully aren't dull as hell

Id definitely recommend 'Dequincy - Radical Nature'.
It gives a good over-view of every possible school of thought on the subject of consciousness. So aside from his personal view of consciousness, it actually makes a good history lesson in philosophy in general
It 'can' be abit dry at times, although you do find things in every chapter to really challenge what you think/believe, so you can actually forgive him for not being the most engaging writer in the world.

 

[heliocentric]

However, before hospitals starting doing this I already knew. There is no evidence that consciousness persists after death. Not a single dead person has communicated with the living. It's simple really.

Not actually true, theres a shed load of evidence out of there for after-death communication. I wouldnt say its conclusive, but theres certainly enough compelling evidence out there.
Look at something like the Enfield haunting.
http://www.newsmonster.co.uk/content/view/155/72/
You have all sorts of people - psychologists, journalists, policemen, next door neighbours confirming the poltergeist activity.
In those sorts of cases you come to a junction where it actually requires far more faith to believe that something valid and external 'didnt' happen than to conclude that it did.
Having said that as its been pointed out in that case you could be dealing somesort of psychokinetic activity rather than something beyond death.
Either way, its another instance of the truely anonamous that doesnt really tally up with prosaic explainations.

I am not disputing audio. Dying people whom are conscious can apparently hear things sometimes. It's the floating overhead as some kind of disembodies soul that is utterly hallucinatory... and proven to be so via those hospital experiments.

Isolated incidents of OBEs have shown that the OBE imagery 'does' match up with the actual ongoing events in the theatre from time to time though.
Thats what makes OBEs so perplexing, some of the data just doesnt match up 'atall' with reality and some of it does - with eerie accuracy.
Id posit that OBEs are some sort of 'inbetween' state of fantasy and reality personally.
In either case, and what ever they may be these experiences are definitely hard-wired into the brain/mind it seems.

Jesus H. Christ. Science is a tool. It's a freakin' process and NOTHING MORE. Consciousness is SELF EVIDENT. In other words the 'what' is there and people are using science to understand the 'how' / 'why'. You cannot really apply science to a 'what' that is non-existent... there has to be something 'real' to study.

Well this is what me and Grover are trying to get across here (sorry to butt in here by the way) the 'what' is still highly contestable.
At the most extreme end you have quantum particles setting a divide within philosophy and science - some claim their self-agency and their demonstration of reciept and transmission of information is enough to constitute consciousness.
Others believe that there must be some sort of 'higher' expression of subjectivity for us to label them as conscious.

 

[grover]

They can distinguish self from other, friend from foe, are emotionally motivated, can remember (not sure what their learning capacity is). They seem to be conscious.

So you're saying ants are conscious. So then do ants have a sense of self? Are they aware of mortality? Are ants smarter than dogs? Dogs don't farm, ants do. You're really just making a wild guess as to whether ants are conscious or not.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Not actually true, theres a shed load of evidence out of there for after-death communication. I wouldnt say its conclusive, but theres certainly enough compelling evidence out there.
Look at something like the Enfield haunting.
http://www.newsmonster.co.uk/content/view/155/72/
You have all sorts of people - psychologists, journalists, policemen, next door neighbours confirming the poltergeist activity.
In those sorts of cases you come to a junction where it actually requires far more faith to believe that something valid and external 'didnt' happen than to conclude that it did.
Having said that as its been pointed out in that case you could be dealing somesort of psychokinetic activity rather than something beyond death.
Either way, its another instance of the truely anonamous that doesnt really tally up with prosaic explainations.

Where are the videos showing these fantastic events in the absence of the family's presence? The evidence is unreliable and at best supports combinations of human trickery and delusion. If there is any truth in there, it's been compromised by the family.

Isolated incidents of OBEs have shown that the OBE imagery 'does' match up with the actual ongoing events in the theatre from time to time though.

Thats what makes OBEs so perplexing, some of the data just doesnt match up 'atall' with reality and some of it does - with eerie accuracy.
Id posit that OBEs are some sort of 'inbetween' state of fantasy and reality personally.

It does even in the controlled operating room environments too. The point is that the human brain can perform simulation based on input stimulus and memory... but it is a simulation otherwise more than 0% of the people would have clearly seen the pictures on the monitors facing upwards.

In either case, and what ever they may be these experiences are definitely hard-wired into the brain/mind it seems.

If memory serves me correct, they can be induced artifically... I think it was with TMS.

Well this is what me and Grover are trying to get across here (sorry to butt in here by the way) the 'what' is still highly contestable.
At the most extreme end you have quantum particles setting a divide within philosophy and science - some claim their self-agency and their demonstration of reciept and transmission of information is enough to constitute consciousness.

I think it was TruthSeeker whom was arguing this same conclusion saying that a superpositioned particle collapses when 'observed' but refused to accept the fact that a biological observer wasn't necessary... even when his prize article explicitly stated "the observer was not human" (it was a mechanical device). Ever hear of a particle learning, being emotionally motivated, 'choosing' to do something different?

Others believe that there must be some sort of 'higher' expression of subjectivity for us to label them as conscious.

Why 'believe'? I mean in general... in the absence of evidence why accept a fantastic idea as truth?

 

[heliocentric]

Where are the videos showing these fantastic events in the absence of the family's presence? The evidence is unreliable and at best supports combinations of human trickery and delusion. If there is any truth in there, it's been compromised by the family.

Well the thing is, noone to date has ever actually gotten round to explaining how these sorts of feats or 'tricks' might be pulled off, i mean not even the most basic of guesses as to how they might have done it at all.
At the very least you can only conclude that in this specific instance, prosaic explainations have critically failed to explain these events.

It does even in the controlled operating room environments too. The point is that the human brain can perform simulation based on input stimulus and memory... but it is a simulation otherwise more than 0% of the people would have clearly seen the pictures on the monitors facing upwards.

Well as i said, there is evidence outside of that particular experiment which strongly suggests otherwise.
Ive yet to be convinced by anything one way or another yet to be honest, as i said my hunch is the experiencer occupying a state of reality and fantasy.

If memory serves me correct, they can be induced artifically... I think it was with TMS.

Yep, i think almost any phenomenal experience can be triggered artifically these days actually.

I think it was TruthSeeker whom was arguing this same conclusion saying that a superpositioned particle collapses when 'observed' but refused to accept the fact that a biological observer wasn't necessary... even when his prize article explicitly stated "the observer was not human" (it was a mechanical device).

Im not sure why the observer being human or not is relevant - all an observer is doing is recieving and recording information, which is something even a cheap camcorder can do (does this mean camcorders are conscious? - another kettle of fish right there!)
Btw check out the quantum eraser experiment if you get time, the state of the particles actually change as data is wiped on an off a recording device - utterally mind blowing.

Ever hear of a particle learning, being emotionally motivated, 'choosing' to do something different?

Again, emotionality and learning may or may not be key components of consciousness. This is the problem, we have no universally agreed apon criteria for consciousness or rather we have many different check-lists for consciousness which all vary quite abit!
What can say however that particles have self agency - infact this is the key reason for their behaviour being so unpredictible on a quantum level.