Religious scientists... an example of 'Doublethink'

[Crunchy Cat]

So you're saying ants are conscious. So then do ants have a sense of self?

Ants appear to have multiple senses of self. They can distinguish between 'self' and 'other' and between 'collective' and 'other'.

Are they aware of mortality?

I have no idea.

Are ants smarter than dogs? Dogs don't farm, ants do.

The farming behavior seems to be instinctual rather than a result of problem solving (intelligence). Beyond that I have not studied the problem solving capabilities of ants as compared to dogs; however, I would speculate that dogs would be more intelligent.

You're really just making a wild guess as to whether ants are conscious or not.

Ants exhibit behavior that known conscious entities do. They have nervous systems and a brain-stem-like structure. They can learn, communicate, distinguish self from other at the individual and collective level, etc. They would appear to be conscious; allthough, I have no idea what the quality of it would be like.

 

[grover]

Ants appear to have multiple senses of self. They can distinguish between 'self' and 'other' and between 'collective' and 'other'.

appear - (science can't actually tell us what the reality is)

I have no idea.

True.

The farming behavior seems to be instinctual rather than a result of problem solving (intelligence).

seems (furthermore, how do we know what appears to be conscious behavior isn't merely instinctual behavior.)

Beyond that I have not studied the problem solving capabilities of ants as compared to dogs; however, I would speculate that dogs would be more intelligent.

speculate

Ants exhibit behavior that known conscious entities do.

My point. We have no idea if the ants are actually conscious or are just automatons.

They have nervous systems and a brain-stem-like structure. They can learn, communicate, distinguish self from other at the individual and collective level, etc. They would appear to be conscious; allthough, I have no idea what the quality of it would be like.

Exactly, they appear to be conscious, and yet we have no idea if they actually are conscious or instinctually driven automatons.

 

[grover]

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.

Computers can do all of these except for emotional motivation. Computer programs are not conscious.

 

[grover]

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.

Helio,
Here's my take on the in between state of fantasy and reality. All reality is created by consciousness. The material reality is actually made by the collective consciousness of humanity which explains why there is rules and consistency to it. (It is literally consensus reality). But, when consciousness escapes the confines of the material consensus reality by spiritual practice, dreams, or death (all of which by the way reduce the physical - i.e. freeing consciousness) then consciousness still creates reality but this reality is no longer confined by the consensus physical reality but instead creates its own individual reality.

This view actually turns upside down the normal way of consciousness being dependent on the brain to work, but actually makes it so that the brain is dependent on consciousness to work.

I know it sounds pretty out there, but do you thinks this stance at least works logically?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

appear - (science can't actually tell us what the reality is)

Correct and observation tells us that regardless they do have a sense of self.

seems (furthermore, how do we know what appears to be conscious behavior isn't merely instinctual behavior.)

Why should they be exclusive?

speculate

You seem to be grasping the notion of non-conclusive language. You should try using it yourself.

My point. We have no idea if the ants are actually conscious or are just automatons.

I don't think we know of any automations that can do anything close to what an ant can. Ants exhibit conscious behavior have the internal plumbing known to facilitate consciousnes. That pretty much means they are conscious... just not the same quality of consciousness that humans have.

Exactly, they appear to be conscious, and yet we have no idea if they actually are conscious or instinctually driven automatons.

Again, why would instinct and consciousness be exlusive? It seems instinct would be an important part of it.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Computers can do all of these except for emotional motivation. Computer programs are not conscious.

Computers can do *some* of those in a very limited capacity. I suspect they day they can do all of them in a full capacity is the day artificial consciousness is invented.

 

[heliocentric]

Helio,
Here's my take on the in between state of fantasy and reality. All reality is created by consciousness. The material reality is actually made by the collective consciousness of humanity which explains why there is rules and consistency to it. (It is literally consensus reality). But, when consciousness escapes the confines of the material consensus reality by spiritual practice, dreams, or death (all of which by the way reduce the physical - i.e. freeing consciousness) then consciousness still creates reality but this reality is no longer confined by the consensus physical reality but instead creates its own individual reality.

This view actually turns upside down the normal way of consciousness being dependent on the brain to work, but actually makes it so that the brain is dependent on consciousness to work.

I know it sounds pretty out there, but do you thinks this stance at least works logically?

I think it's definitely a possibility, and if you accept things like Jung's synchronicitys it makes perfect sense.
Personally i think objective reality is more akin to a collapsed state of reality rather than an absolute manifestation of human thought.
i.e. our objective reality probably existed already in the some sort of universal probability matrix - it simply manifested as condensed matter due to a self-observational critical mass that made it collapse in on itself.

Essentially i think it's inter-observation that sort of knits everything to together as reality as we know it, its like if we all hold each others gaze we can maintain the construct - if we blink and look away it doesnt hold anymore.

Have you ever looked at a wall and had the feeling it's looking back at you?
I dont mean litterally, of course walls dont have eyes
But there does seem to be a sort of low grade two-way acknowledgement there of each others existance/presence within space/time.
I think that innate awareness of anothers presence helps the universe to exist as it does - i.e. we wouldnt be able to share a relationship to anything if nothing ever acknowledged the others existance.

That could all be bollocks of course - im not really sure there's any way to really prove it to be honest, unless you could subtract every thread of matter from the universe - then insert a single particle into a quantum void and see how it behaved.
Its of course only a thought experiment but id posit that it would instantly collapse into nothingness as there would be absolutely nothing for the particle to share a relationship to. Although again - no real way to prove it!

 

[grover]

Correct and observation tells us that regardless they do have a sense of self.

We have no idea if ants have a sense of self.

Why should they be exclusive?

Never said they should be. I'm pointing out that it's impossible to tell if something has consciousness by observing its behavior. It could merely be instinctual behavior that appears conscious.

I don't think we know of any automations that can do anything close to what an ant can.

Like what? Move around. Obey simpy input/output commands.

Ants exhibit conscious behavior have the internal plumbing known to facilitate consciousnes. That pretty much means they are conscious... just not the same quality of consciousness that humans have.

No, that doesn't mean anything. We have no idea if ants have consciousness. Behaviour proves nothing. For example, they can make computer programs that answer any question a person asks with enough sophistication that people can't tell it's merely a program - in other words, it appears to be conscious to human observers but in actual fact is as unconscious as a rock.

Again, why would instinct and consciousness be exlusive? It seems instinct would be an important part of it.

Never said they should be. I'm pointing out that you can't tell if something is conscious or not based upon its behavior. Remember, the overwhelming majority of the things our minds do is unconcious, how your brain decodes this sentence is done unconciously, so conciousness is not necessary for even intellectual processes, let alone instinctual ones. There is no objective third-person way to prove consciousness.