Atheism, Agnosticsism & that kind of stuff

[Ed]

Here is a quiz that you might want to use as a springboard in making your case:

TRUE or FALSE:

1. Human consciousness is an accident.
2. The universe does not has consciousness
3. Consciousness does not exist anywhere else in the universe except for planet Earth
4. Consciousness did not exist at the Big Bang
5. Knowing HOW the universe was created is useful.
6. The universe is not an accident
7. There is no reason for the universe to exist

[Ed]

TO me, it takes just as much faith for an atheiest to claim that there is no God as it does for a god-believer to claim there is.

Agnostics, have no such faith in either view.

[Gary]

Have you read any of the other threads? I am sure I covered this repeatedly;

Fair enough I will indulge the answers as best as I can.

1. INVALID ("The word 'accident' implies a purpose that is diverted unintentionally. A better word would be 'emergent'.)
2. INVALID ('Consciousness' beyond our own species has not been identified or qualified. One could say that if our brains are the part of us that is conscious then we could thus be considered the part of the Universe that is conscious therefore the question is TRUE, FALSE or UNKNOWN depending on how you choose your definition)
3. UNKNOWN (In fact we cannot define well where it exists on Earth)
4. PENDING (Do you mean the Big Bang which lasted thousands of years, or do you mean the earliest point in the universe)
5. TRUE. (How can knowing how not be useful to any intellectual enquiry?)
6. INVALID. (Again accident.)
7. INVALID. (Reason for the universe to exist would imply a causative factor that lies 'outside' the universe, but since the proper definition of universe is 'everything' then any external causative factor would be outside existence and therefore does not exist, and any internal causative factor would also have to be the cause of itself.)

Again your definitions of atheist and agnostic seem to be chosen to fit your statement.

An atheist does not believe in the non-existence of god, an atheist has no belief in any god (or indeed any thing). Generally they accept that there is an independent reality that they are part of as an intellectual necessity. Yet a lot are quite willing to accept that reality may not be what it initially appears to us.

This description seems to correlate to your use of the term "agnostic" meaning "I don't know". There are indeed several atheists I know who also self-identify as agnostics based on this premise.

Atheists that claim "there is no god" are doing so generally in the same way as you might say "there are no unicorns". That is to say with zero evidence of their existence it is intellectually sound to dismiss the concept. An atheist that perhaps discovered a lost island replete with unicorn skeletons may subsequently modify that statement once there is evidence to do so. (Some atheists may modify the statement anyway to say that it is possible that unicorns exist somewhere, but until there is proof there is an infinite number of other cryptozoological animals that could also exist so I will not elevate this one possibility above the others by giving it undue credence without evidence.

There is also philosophical agnosticism (i.e. "cannot know", rather than "not know")which takes the view that the universe cannot actually be comprehended by anything within the universe as you would have to be greater than the universe to encapsulate the concept. I feel that this is just intellectual surrender. There are plenty of complex objects that we can understand without having to model every single aspect. Indeed often simplistic statistical laws derive from seemingly complex interactions, and information theory shows us that simple rules can lead to complex consequences. This form of agnosticism seems to feed into a classical reductionism that we have long since surpassed.

The final form, theistic agnosticism, takes a particular idea of a supernatural entity and gives it validity without evidence as a false dichotomy with unbelief. It is almost identical to Deism which establishes that god is either unknown or unknowable to contemporary religion.

Your view seems to be the latter.

Could you answer these questions?

1. Do you believe in the non-existence of god? (If "yes" you are Anti-theist)
2. Do you believe you know that some entity or being exists that could be characterised as a god? (If "yes" you are theist/deist, you cannot be agnostic because you claim to 'know'. If "no" then you fit the criteria of agnostic/atheist )

I have actually tried to formulate a question that would split agnostic from either deist or atheist but the only way I can make it work is if you believe that atheism is a belief, but that belief is fairly unique to theists/deists but is a misrepresentation of the atheist position.

[Ed]

To answer your first question: I don't know. There is not enough evidence one way or the other.

To answer your second question: No. I have stated several times that I do not know that any entity that could be characterized as god exists.

However, even though that I do not know for certain that does not mean that I should stop looking evidence. There are afterall (depending on how you define god) some fairly solid arguments to support the idea that there is a god.
I'm talking about the definition that god being: A consciousness that was present at the Big Bang.

[Gary]

Ed Wagemann wrote: "There are afterall (depending on how you define god) some fairly solid arguments to support the idea that there is a god. "

Not a single one I have heard, and I have heard quite a few. Most fall down on the same basic assumptions (sometimes without realising they are assumptions).

I have also commented on an another thread about "confirmation bias". When you have a hypothesis and then look for evidence that supports that hypothesis you are far more likely to find 'false positives'. This is why science doesn't use this methodology much (despite public perception).

To really test a hypothesis the first step is to try to think of a test that could falsify your hypothesis. You make a prediction based on that hypothesis and then see if that prediction is true or false.

Theoretical physics and other sciences tend to proceed this way, experimental sciences start with evidence and observation and then tries to postulate a hypothesis that explains it and then return to the falsification phase.

Hypotheses that look for confirming evidence often end up overlooking important information or better hypotheses.

The Big Bang theory saw confirmation by this method. When challenged by the steady state theory a test was devised. If the universe was smaller in the past then stars (and supernovaes) should be closer together the further away we look. A consistent spread of supernovae would be evidence that would potentially falsify the hypothesis. An intense survey of supernovae compared to red shift was conducted and the theory found confirmation.

The CMB glow of the big bang was another prediction, but it was actually discovered by both methods. A scientist predicted it's existence and the fact it should be red-shifted to radio waves, but before he could search for it a group of experimenters stumbled upon the hypothesis which neatly explained the 'noise' in their antenna array that had been driving them mad.

So before looking for 'evidence' you need to establish what that evidence would be, and how a universe would look different between the hypotheses.

The difference between 'atheism' and the 'agnosticism' you describe is that atheism is not a hypothesis for the beginning of the universe, while your 'primordial consciousness' is. I note in the description that you do not include the concept that this consciousness was the 'creator' just that they were 'present'. Does this mean that the consciousness you postulate could be just as spontaneous as the universe, or is the next step to assume that the 'primordial consciousness' is thus the 'creator'?

Still the thread's question is a paradox.

"Atheism" is not 'true' because atheism is not a claim, it's specifically not making a claim or believing in a particular set of claims.

"Agnostism" cannot be 'true' either, because if we 'know' it to be true then it is no longer a-gnosis (absence of knowing) and is therefore false.

I recognise you acknowledge this with;

Ed Wagemann wrote: "To answer your first question: I don't know. There is not enough evidence one way or the other."

But then you immediately refute your own answer with "There are afterall (depending on how you define god) some fairly solid arguments to support the idea that there is a god"

Surely said 'solid' argument would be enough evidence??

[Ed]

Solid arguments do not constitute enough proof. There is evidence, but nothing definitive.

Also, if there was consciousness at the Big Bang, then why would it have to be the creator of the universe? Is there any reason that it could not have been an innocent bysander?

[Raul]

Thanks for the invitation to the group, Ed. You pose a number of fascinating discussions. So why not start with the Big One?

Today's religion is tomorrow's mythology. “We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.” Richard Dawkins

It is the height of arrogance to believe we are the only sentient beings in the universe. Until recently, underdeveloped human societies living in isolated environments often suffered from this delusion.

The big bang theory was arrived at by experiments which resemble cavemen finding a watch, smashing it with a rock, and then naming the pieces.

Half of what passes for scientific knowledge at any point in time will later be proved wrong. Think of phlogiston, phrenology, bleeding as a medical cure, etc. However, it is this very malleability of thought that makes science superior to creationism. Science will change when proven wrong. Creationism is the willful rejection of contrary evidence.

[Ed]

The big bang theory was arrived at by experiments which resemble cavemen finding a watch, smashing it with a rock, and then naming the pieces.

Very well put.

As for "creationism being the willful rejection of contrary evidence", why do you think that is so? Isn't it something that yes, science will at times be proven wrong - but creationism has not been able to be proven wrong?

Most people think that everything that exists must have been created. Most people's brains cannot fathom a possibility where something exists, yet it was not created. Therefore to most people creationism seems to be the most logical answer.

[Raul]

I say creationism rejects contrary evidence because it is invariably couched in religious theology. By it's nature, theology is inflexible, purporting itself as "the truth." Therefore, creationist often find themselves forced to dispute verifiable scientific evidence. (The earth is not flat nor is it the center of the universe as once widely taught.) Each religious group rejects the creation myths of other cultures but clings tenaciously to its own. I question scientific evidence with the same rigor I question creationism. The difference is, scientists will admit they were wrong when otherwise proven. Creationism rejects all dissenting viewpoints.

[Ed]

I see your point. I'm sure there are plenty of creationists who reject contrary evidence due to religious theoogy, but others (who have no religious ties) must reject it for the same reason that I do. It just seems logical that the universe was created because otherwise how could it exist? How can something exist if it was never created?

A physicist in this group named Gary has been trying to explain this to me for a couple months now - and I keep rejecting this notion. Not because I have any religious beliefs I'm beholden to - I'm agnostic - but simply because I see no examples from the natural world in which this happens: I see no examples of something existing without ever having been created.

[Raul]

The "why" of existence is not something science attempts to answer. It only offers us an explanation for "how" things work.

If the big bang is real, what was there before? To that, I can only say: "If there is a supreme creator who ignited the big bang, who created the creator?" Cosmic mysteries will always be with us. Ultimately, we each form our peace (or not) with existence.

Thanks for posting this discussion, Ed. I look forward to reading more.

[Ed]

Raul wrote: "The "why" of existence is not something science attempts to answer. It only offers us an explanation for "how" things work."

That's what I've said also. And I've gotten the reply that, "Well, there is no why."

So I've said, "Well how do you know there is no why?"

And I've been told, "Well you can't prove a negative. You can't prove that something doesn't exist. Just try proving to me that unicorns don't exist and you'll see what I mean."

In the end the argument becomes somewhat circular and keeps falling back onto itself.

Ironically there is specific model to explain the universe that also sorta continually falls back on itself. I cant recall the name of it right now though.

[Raul]

One thought experiment suggests that, given an infinite amount of time, a chimp could write Shakespeare. You explain that this idea of a creator is something you intuitively sense -- and that is certainly valid in my opinion. My intuition suggests that in this vast and infinite universe, the evolution of the cosmos and the creation of life occurred as random circumstances without a conscious entity pulling the strings. The evidence for this view is eloquently presented in SHADOWS OF FORGOTTEN ANCESTORS by Carl Sagan. You might check this book out. I found it to be profound and actually very comforting.

[Gary]

Ed Wagemann wrote: "I see no examples of something existing without ever having been created. "

Name one thing of something that exists that was created, and when I mean created I mean created from nothing.

Everything in the universe we can see has not been created but reconfigured from something earlier. A chair was once a tree, the tree was once CO2 and other organic chemicals fused together by the process of life. The C and O where reconfigured from Protons and Neutrons in the cores of stars, the protons were formed from the Gluon Plasma when the universe was moments old.

Nothing in the universe you can see has been "created", creation has never been observed to happen. Humans just assume it happened because they draw an arbitrary line between defining when something exists and something doesn't.

[Gary]

Raul wrote: "The big bang theory was arrived at by experiments which resemble cavemen finding a watch, smashing it with a rock, and then naming the pieces.."

No. Actually that's particle physics and that's not the way it's done. If you guessed how a watch worked, then tested that guess by smashing millions of watches it and seeing a certain piece fly out many times in accordance to your mathematical model, that's closer.

The Big Bang Theory was established by looking at the universe and working out it was expanding, it was then confirmed by calculating the consequences and then looking to see the glow of the fireball, which was exactly where we saw it.

So no, the Big Bang Theory was established by looking at evidence without preconceptions.

[Gary]

Raul wrote: "Isn't it something that yes, science will at times be proven wrong - but creationism has not been able to be proven wrong? "

Yes because creationism cannot be proved wrong, therefore it cannot be proved right. Just as the god hypothesis cannot be proved wrong.

[Gary]

Ed Wagemann wrote: "It just seems logical that the universe was created because otherwise how could it exist? "

For existence to be created then there has to be a time when there was no existence and then a time when there was. If time exists then there can never be a time when time does not exist. Therefore creating time is logically impossible, therefore as time is part of the observable universe then how can the universe be created?

[Gary]

Ed Wagemann wrote: "Raul wrote: "The "why" of existence is not something science attempts to answer. It only offers us an explanation for "how" things work."

That's what I've said also. And I've gotten the reply that, "Well, there is no why."

Actually the proper answer was "why" implies purpose, a conscious decision. So before you can answer "Why" you have to actually establish "how" it could be a conscious decision. If you do it the other way around then by asking "why" you are assuming there is a purpose.

Ed Wagemann wrote: "And I've been told, "Well you can't prove a negative. You can't prove that something doesn't exist. Just try proving to me that unicorns don't exist and you'll see what I mean.""

Exactly. This is why looking for evidence for hypotheses blinds you to alternate hypotheses, and why a hypothesis that cannot be tested is completely useless.

Ed Wagemann wrote: "In the end the argument becomes somewhat circular and keeps falling back onto itself."

Which is why in the search for knowledge, be it in science or in a court of Law, you start with evidence, then build a theory, then look for ways to disprove the theory.

E.g.
Observation: A crime is committed
Hypothesis: A person connected to the crime is accused.
Critique: You attempt to falsify the hypothesis (Does the accused have an alibi? etc.)
Trial: If the hypothesis is not falsified then evidence is gathered and a rationale to explain the links is worked out. (Opportunity, Motive, Evidence)
Verdict: The result is decided (usually by consensus) and the Theory is rejected (innocent) or accepted (guilty).

The method of looking for evidence to support a preferred idea is indeed used in some states, but it is generally accepted as being nothing to do with justice and therefore truth.

By Ed's argument of assuming its possible that god exists then looking for evidence to support that hypothesis is the same sort of problem.

As an analogy to the Law again,

Hypothesis: Any crime imaginable has been committed and every person is potentially guilty of every crime.
Critique: You pick one person and assume they are guilty of a crime that may or may not of actually happened.
Trial: Without looking for ways to falsify the charge by working out a way to show the crime never happened, or that this particular person has never committed any crime imaginable, then this trial can never reach a verdict.
Verdict: Eventually the judge chooses a preferred answer that has nothing to do with truth and in the meantime has put all his energy into this process while millions of real crimes go unsolved.

Ed Wagemann wrote: "Ironically there is specific model to explain the universe that also sorta continually falls back on itself. I cant recall the name of it right now though. "

Usually referred to as an oscillating universe, or punctuated steady state or the "Big Bounce Hypothesis". Of course this kind of universe is another attempt to explain the logical impossibility of creation.

[Ed]

Gary writes: Name one thing of something that exists that was created, and when I mean created I mean created from nothing.

Didn't we already go over this? What was it called? The doulbe-slit experiment.

But more to the point, you are trying to finagle the defintions of creation once again. Something does not have to magically appear from nothing to be created. The Beatles created music. It wasnt created from nothing. It was created from their instrments and their voices and studio techniques, etc. Humans are not created from nothing. They are created from their mothers and fathers. So this attempt of yours to try and change the defintion of creation is just a semantic trick that once again tries to derails the meaning of what I'm saying. When you say "create" YOU might mean somethng that it is created from nothing, but that just simply is an incorrect use of the word "create".

[Rock]

I actually beleive in god, so I am going to have to say that neither one is true. But Agnostics are closer to the truth than atheiests.

[Rock]

The thing I don't understand about atheists is what do theiy think happens when something or someone dies, where does all that energy go? I'm talking about all energy that kept that person alive. I think it is like a match. We light it, it flames up, then reacts to the physicla universe around it, and becomes something new. The energy is simply in a new form now.

[Ed]

Even if somehow you were still in some way "conscious" after death, you would no longer be you.

It sounds like we are talking about what the ancient Greeks were referring to when they come up with the concept/term for a "soul". That unknown entity that is like the glue that keeps living things moving through time and space.

Physics have been able to describe the mechanics associates with the chemical reactions that take place in living things. But no one has been able to describe why these mechanisms are there, why they work. We can only observe them and make up theories about them. But we really don't understand them in the larger context.

[Gary]

Ed Wagemann wrote: "Physics have been able to describe the mechanics associates with the chemical reactions that take place in living things. But no one has been able to describe why these mechanisms are there, why they work. We can only observe them and make up theories about them. But we really don't understand them in the larger context. "

Actually it's quite well understood for the most part, a lot of it is to do with mathematics and symmetry.

As for "why" they are there, again the question includes the assumption of a purpose. You cannot ask why until you establish that there is a purpose to ask about.

For example "why" has my leg grown long enough to reach the ground from my hip? Before we can ask that we need to establish what would have happened if it had of been another length. Perhaps there is no "purpose" but instead the length is an inevitable consequence of other factors.

[Ed]

Actually it's quite well understood for the most part, a lot of it is to do with mathematics and symmetry.

Not really. "For the most part" as you say, doesn't include the big picture stuff. It just includes the observable mechanics that our limited perceptions as humans on a tiny planet can calculate.

[Ed]

Robb wrote: "The simpler answer is to not make up any strange personable forces.
People misinterpret this to mean they should stick with a popular handed-down assumption (the gods), but that is not logical at all (rational, but not logical). "

Robb, who are you saying is making up "strange personable forces"?

[Mark]

Agnosticism has no possible 'truth' value.

[Ed]

Robb wrote: "
Assuming consciousness in inanimate objects... "

I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that I am assuming consciousness in inanimte objects? And that by doing so I am making up "strange personable forces"?

If this is what you are saying, then can you elaborate?

In paticular can you tell how these inanimate objects that interact with each other are any different than the inanimate cells inside our bodies that are reacting to one another each time we make a conscious effort to move?

As Lou Reed once sang, "between thought and expression lies a lifetime". I would add that between thought and expression lies a universe as well. Cells, particles, electrons, atoms. All that which goes into making a consious movement in the body of a human is of the same matter that is involved in the movements of these "inanimate objects" I've been talking about such as the moon and magnets and Venus flytraps, etc.

[Ed]

Well if the specific chemical reactions in our body are a product of OUR conscious thought THEN doesn't it stand to reason that there is a real possibility that the specific chemical reactions that take place in the universe are a product of consciousness as well?

[Ed]

What you think of as consciousness is a whole bunch of neurons communicating (and silencing one another) and doling out the data in much the same way as bees in a hive. Most of the decision is made before it even reaches that point.

This conversation is starting to veer toward the abstract. So lets use a specific example as to what we are referring to.

Maybe we can start with something like the conscious decision to scratch your ass, for instance. Many of the chemical reactions inside the body that take place during this act are part of patterns that are learned at a young age. Many of these reactions involve muscle memory. BUT the initial decision to scratch your ass is a conscious one.

Now, if all of these chenical reactions inside our bodies are bascially learned behaviors from infantile conscious decisions, then doesnt it stand to reason that all of the VERY similar chemical reactions that are going on throughout the universe might also be the result of some conscious decisions that derive from when the universe was infantile?

Don't we have a nice model for how this all works right inside our own bodies?

[Gary]

Ed Wagemann wrote: "This conversation is starting to veer toward the abstract. So lets use a specific example as to what we are referring to."

Unfortunately the conversation will tend to veer toward the abstract because consciousness is a very abstract concept.

Ed Wagemann wrote: "Maybe we can start with something like the conscious decision to scratch your ass, for instance. Many of the chemical reactions inside the body that take place during this act are part of patterns that are learned at a young age. Many of these reactions involve muscle memory. BUT the initial decision to scratch your ass is a conscious one."

This is actually a good place to start. Is the decision a conscious one? Many people scratch itches without being consciously aware that they are doing it unless they concentrate. Ever had chicken pox? Why do we scratch itches at all, except that we have an urge to do so which may have evolved from removing parasites or bugs, but we do not "decide" to scratch ourselves to remove an object we have detected, we scratch because the act of scratching then results in a reward sensation of satisfaction.

This is why there are so many states such as "pre-consciousness" or "subconscious" or "unconscious", in reality they describe an entire spectrum of conscious states and decisions from the unaware to the impulsive to the carefully reasoned.

Furthermore, these processes are now better understood than ever. Many of our day to day decisions can be understood by a chain of events starting with a stimulus followed by a decision. Advertisers often skilfully use stimulus to get desired responses, be it clicking impulsively on a link, or purchasing a snack that we don't really need based on the reward anticipated from the taste that they have associated with some ad or other.

In the end there is every sign that consciousness is just a level of emergent complexity from more basic stimulus/response functions of the mind. This has been demonstrated with people who have damage to certain emotional centres of the brain, where it becomes harder for them to make even a completely arbitrary decision because their ability to process the stimuli into desirable or undesirable is impaired. It has also been shown that making decisions while angry actually may lead to better decisions rather than worse ones, due to the immediacy of the emotions.

Ed Wagemann wrote: "Now, if all of these chenical reactions inside our bodies are bascially learned behaviors from infantile conscious decisions, then doesnt it stand to reason that all of the VERY similar chemical reactions that are going on throughout the universe might also be the result of some conscious decisions that derive from when the universe was infantile?"

No it doesn't stand to reason. For a start "infantile" carries the assumption that the universe is not only a living organism, but that it has an "adult" form. For this to be reasonable we would have to observe other universes in their "adult" state and prove that universes were a lifeform following all the pre-requisites of life including replication. The only problem with this is that the universe is "everything" and a lifeform according to one of the better definitions is a entity undergoing a localised self sustaining reversal of entropy, which is impossible in a closed system like the universe.

Ed Wagemann wrote: "Don't we have a nice model for how this all works right inside our own bodies? "

Yes we do, but the model you suggest is again circular reasoning. If all interactions are conscious and then our consciousness appears to arise from chemical interactions, were does consciousness actually come in? It's intellectual bootstrapping.

However the model we have is quite sufficient to explain the basics without having to attribute consciousness as some sort of metaphysical field.

Take for example computer programs. If you think back as far as the early days of personal computing, if you recall anything about the computer programs of the time, programs were very simple sets of instructions. The computer executes those instructions simply and sequentially and if an instruction was wrong, usually the entire computer came to a shuddering halt.

Moving on, increasingly complex computers led to branching programs of more sophistication, that could respond to certain pre-programmed conditions, and if there was an error somewhere it didn't always take the entire computer down.

Nowadays computer programs are so incredibly complex that software is routinely released with errors, bugs and unforeseen issues because it has become uneconomic to try to foresee every error, so instead patches are released and safeguards are put in place to minimise the issues.

The next stage is neural-networking, computers that can alter and adjust their own programming to adapt to new circumstance. This has already led to some fantastic "smart" programs that can eventually do things in a small amount of code that no programmer could have simply made, because the computer has 'learned' what worked and what didn't. It has generally been recognised as impossible to program a robot to walk on any surface because the calculations to account for every variable becomes exponentatially greater. However, neural net robots not only can walk but can adapt to different terrain and can even stagger and recover instead of falling when unexpectedly shoved.

All this points toward conscious decisions and therefore consciousness being an emergent property of a neural architecture of a certain complexity. This theory would predict that simple neural structures (note not necessarily "small" but simple) would result in organisms with very basic stimulus-response functions, while the more complex the structure got the more "conscious" the being would seem to act, until at a certain "critical mass" the level of conscious decision making and abstraction would become recursive and self-referential which would be a state indistinguishable from consciousness as we know it.

All this is actually fairly well understood and not mysterious. Specifics of how everything works though is still complex, but we do not need to add in any ghostly entities to explain it though, just as we do not need to add in a ghostly force to explain how simple 1 & 0 calculations in a computer build up to a word processor or a video game.

Consider also, hold your breath. Do you make a conscious decision to breathe every moment? No but you can make a conscious decision to not do something as much as you can to do. This shows that consciousness is not an absolute or a universal, consciousness is relative and in the most complete way, entirely subjective.

If consciousness existed as a "thing" in itself then drugs, hunger, adversity, manipulation, advertisement, conditioning, hormonal imbalance etc. would have no effect on our decisions. There is a wealth of evidence against that concept. If however consciousness is a certain level of complex stimuli and response this explains all those results and yet makes the intricate complexities and uniqueness of each persons consciousness no less impressive or precious.

[Ed]

Gary wrote:This is why there are so many states such as "pre-consciousness" or "subconscious" or "unconscious", in reality they describe an entire spectrum of conscious states and decisions from the unaware to the impulsive to the carefully reasoned.

Furthermore, these processes are now better understood than ever. Many of our day to day decisions can be understood by a chain of events starting with a stimulus followed by a decision. Advertisers often skilfully use stimulus to get desired responses, be it clicking impulsively on a link, or purchasing a snack that we don't really need based on the reward anticipated from the taste that they have associated with some ad or other."

I feel like it is possible to train or focus or concentrate your consciousness though. For instance I've trained myself NOT to purchase junk food/fast food, etc. Now instead of having an impulse to buy junk food/fast food, my first impulse is to be repulsed by it - WITHOUT even really being conscious that I am repulsed by it. Its become like what would be called a natural instinct - not all that different from the natural instinct to scratch an itch.

I've always been interested in mind over matter, and I've tried experimenting with things like trying not to scratch an itch. Can someone train their consciousness NOT to scratch an itch, so that it becomes a subconscious impulse.

This would be a lot more difficult than trying to train yourself to be repulsed by junk food because presumedly, this impulse to scratch an itch is one that you developed while an infant (while the impulse to want junk food was probablly developed while you were slightly older, maybe 3 or 4 or 5 years old).

[Ed]

Robb wrote: "Reacting to the itch is not conscious."

Huh?

[Gary]

Ed Wagemann wrote: "Robb wrote: "Reacting to the itch is not conscious."

Huh?"

Many people scratch itches without it ever registering consciously. I'd be surprised if you haven't seen people do it.

[Ed]

How can someone scratch an itch if they are not conscious that they have an itch? Why would someone scratch an itch if they do not feel that itch - if they are not 'aware' of that itch? If they are not conscious of it?

This gets into the different levels of consciousness. Like I was talking about above, its mind over matter. The brain consciously trains the body into reacting on "auto-pilot". This goes back to the very earliest stages of an individual's life. Our reactions, even our instinctual one's are conscious.

[Ed]

Rob writes:But by definition, if you don't notice something, you aren't doing it consciously

Are you saying that you can scratch yourself without knowing you are scratching yourself?!?

Also, are you saying that robots have consciousness? In order to have subconsciousness, don't you first have to have the ability to be conscious?

---
Robb writes:It sounds like you're muddling the definition of consciousness a bit.
Pretty much anything you describe as "your brain does this" is going to be an unconscious activity... Otherwise you'd be able to say that you choose to do it.

No, Im not muddling the definition of consciousness, I'm simply pointing out that there are different levels of consciousness. There is a lot going on in the universe. People often think that they do not have the perceptive abilities to consciously take in all these things. You know, some things happen "Sub-consciously" people say. But often times if you point something out that is supposedly 'subconscious' then people will then on some level become conscious of it. Therefore it is no longer subconscious. Instead it is something that you are now aware of - something you are conscious of.

[Gary]

Ed Wagemann wrote: "Are you saying that you can scratch yourself without knowing you are scratching yourself?!?"

Yes, it happens. All sorts of little involuntary twitches and movements can happen not only without conscious awareness, but sometimes even when consciously trying to suppress the action. Do you know what a "tell" is in poker? I have a friend who I have warned to never play poker, because if he has a good hand he giggles quietly, but he is completely unaware that he's doing it until it's pointed out, even when he was trying to stop himself.

Ed Wagemann wrote: "Also, are you saying that robots have consciousness? In order to have subconsciousness, don't you first have to have the ability to be conscious?"

Only if "consciousness" is some sort of magical ethereal thing that you either have or don't have. All the evidence from the behaviour of creatures to the different 'states' of consciousness in people point to the idea that "consciousness" is an emergent property of sufficiently complex interactions. Many animals behave in a "robotic" manner, responding to stimuli in very predictable ways and showing no signs of self-awareness, but with increasing neural complexity there is increasingly complex behaviour. A few animals have the complexity required so that they recognise themselves as individuals and are therefore "self-aware", while humans appear to be self-aware and capable of abstract thought.

Interestingly enough human babies go through this process themselves, showing increasingly complex behaviour but actually not showing full evidence of consciousness until at least several months old.

In the same way computers used to show completely sequential behaviour. Newer more complex robots with Neural net programming and other non-linear advances show more complex behaviour, but none have actually approached the complexity of even a child's mind yet.

Consciousness is not a on/off, it's a property with levels that rise and fall according to the entity and even within the entity, as can be demonstrated with the various states of consciousness of humans.


Ed Wagemann wrote: "No, Im not muddling the definition of consciousness, I'm simply pointing out that there are different levels of consciousness."

Exactly. However, this is because "consciousness" is a qualitative measure of a system rather than a quantitative. In the same manner that one person does not make a civilisation, neither does 2 or 3, but at some level we will label a group a "community", a "society" or a "civilisation". All can be said to be different states of civilisation, but the term civilisation measures a quality of a collection of people, not an inherent ghostly force of "civilisation" that each one carries a bit of.

Ed Wagemann wrote: "Therefore it is no longer subconscious. Instead it is something that you are now aware of - something you are conscious of. "

True, this demonstrates how consciousness is not an absolute, but a scale. What is interesting is that from the nature of the way human memory works we can be conscious of things temporarily. This happens sometimes when a person drives home tired and then panics that they cannot remember the journey and may have fell asleep. In fact they were likely fully aware but in a state of consciousness where unimportant memories did not get transferred into mid-term memory so the memories vanish from the conscious mind. The same happens automatically when one wakes from a dream. Unless one records it immediately by telling someone about it or writing it down, the brain deletes it as unimportant, often leaving the person with a feeling of "that was a weird dream" but then unable to articulate why.

[Ed]

Robb writes: I think this is why I'm confused about this universal consciousness idea.
Whatever scales exist in consciousness, we have clear examples of the brain making decisions unconsciously.
All it takes is one and we disprove the logical argument that supposedly supports the "all things are conscious" idea.

Quite the contrary Robb. If our tiny brains are capable of doing things unconsciously, subconsciously and on auto-pilot then is't that a great example for the possbility that a universal consciousness can do the same. Now, is there some huge conscious entityin the universe that is looking down on Earth saying, "Hmm, I think I'll start a thunderstorm in Newark New Jersey today?" That doesn't really seem likely. BUT, doesn't our own human examples give explanation to the physical mechanisms that exist which COULD have been derived from some universal consciousness that set everything in motion - a universal conscoiusness which in turn causes things like thunderstorms over Newark, New Jersey - subconciously or unconsciously or while on auto-pilot?

You probablly remember reading read Stephen Crane's short story "THe Open Boat" which is considered one of the pillars of naturalistic literature. The idea is that nature does things that have no regard for humanity. Just as if you subconsciously scratch an itch and in doing so cause earthquakes and distruction to a colony of microscopic mites making a go of it on the place you scratch. Your scratch may have been instinctive, unconscious. But it came from a conscious brain none the less.

[Ed]

Nope, I'm not saying that it is an absolute truth - I dont beleive in absolute truths. I'm just saying it is possible. Maybe it is even probable, giving the human example of consciousness. Humans are a part of the universe. We are derived from the universe. We share atoms with the universe. The particles and atoms and such that make us up are not ony from the universe but they are a part of the universe and will continue to be such after humans no longer exist. So it is with good reason to entertian the reality that human characteristics, things such as consciousness, are a part of the universe and are derived from the universe.

[Gary]

Ed Wagemann wrote: "So it is with good reason to entertian the reality that human characteristics, things such as consciousness, are a part of the universe and are derived from the universe. "

It would be far more likely that human characteristics are emergent properties of sufficient complexity. If consciousness were an intrinsic property inherent to the universe then we would expect to see it's presence at every level. If consciousness were an emergent property we would see it's presence more in places of high complexity and it's relative absence in places of low complexity. This predicts that as things increase complexity they are more likely to demonstrate attributes we associate with consciousness.

This is exactly what we see. From the range of creatures from automata like simplistic entities from viruses up to simple multicellular animals we see every sign that they function in very predictable ways, then behaviour becomes increasingly complex as they do until a certain threshold of self awareness and the ability to process abstract thought arises that we label "consciousness".

In a similar manner we can see our children develop becoming ever more aware and conscious as their brain develops from birth.

The alternate hypothesis would hold that a block of lead the size of a human brain would show greater consciousness than a human brain since it has more of the universes material within it.

Remember it is the complexity that is important not the dimensions. The brains complexity is the ability to make and break interconnections so that the number of configurations is staggeringly vast compared to the mere billions of neurons it contains.

[Ed]

There are lots of things in existence in which there is not a single scientific principle to support Robb. Let's not be so blind to think that mankind knows all the intricacies of how the univese works.
Still though, we are conscious enough to logically figure certain things out. And in regard to consciousness logic points to the idea that it came from the universe. All the parts that are involved for giving humans consciousness are derived from the universe. So logically, where else could consciousness come from, if not from the universe???

[Gary]

Robb wrote: "Why would we assume that at all?
Evolution looks and acts as a random process, in which things adapt as they go along. Evolved life forms do not resemble planned machinery (except to the extent we have based machines on living things-- and our tendency is to cut out the redundancies and inefficiencies, keeping only the crucial aspects).
So how does "emergent" come into it?"

Emergent is a mathematical concept best demonstrated by Langton's ant where very simple repetitive rules can lead to complex behaviour http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langton&...

This does not deny the randomness of mutation but also incorporates the laws that allow mutations to lead to evolution. The simple fact that some combinations will die off and others will be advantageous gives the appearance of order because the "chaos" is restricted to a pattern.

This also means that the complexity of something like "consciousness" does not need to be some sort of magical field, but can emerge naturally from the complex interaction of individually simple reactions.

Robb wrote: "Are we really to claim that life is more complex than any other phenomenon?"

Can you think of an example of something more complex? I can't. Unless you count a biosphere made of life.

Robb wrote: "That evolution was a process to come up with an end result?"

Definitely not. Evolution is an ongoing process that has no goal or "direction", indeed that is what makes it so powerful.

Robb wrote: "These are religious concepts, nothing more.
The idea of something being "emergent" doesn't jive with the theory of evolution or the actual empirical results."

Yes it does. As things become more complex then new opportunities open in the phase space of possibility that then complicity effect the complexity in a feedback loop.

For example, there was once an argument about whether man had evolved a large brain and then created society, or social activity triggered the development of a large brain, but both hypotheses miss the point. It is likely that man's brain first enlarged in response to hunting and the advantage of redundant neural tissue. Yet this then made available more complex social patterns which then likely fed back into an advantage for even larger brains. So neither came first they both developed together.

Robb wrote: "It's the assumption that Man is truly the top of the evolutionary ladder, or else the precursor to the even more human version.

This is a very big assumption. "

By no means. This idea does not preclude the emergence of consciousness in other places or even make a value judgement to the "evolutionary ladder" which implies that humans are the top of the ladder when in fact we are far outnumbered by both numbers and sheer biomass by micro-organisms.

Neither does this preclude the development of consciousness elsewhere. Be it a different animal or even radically different conscious types, for example a consciousness composed of a colony of non-conscious organisms (which you could say is similar to humans as it is seems unlikely that each neuron is conscious), and also different conscious forms such as a sufficiently complex computer of some form.

None of this is religion, but fairly well grounded science.

[Gary]

Ed Wagemann wrote: "There are lots of things in existence in which there is not a single scientific principle to support Robb."

Like?

If we know it exists we have detected it, if we've detected it then their is scientific evidence.

Ed Wagemann wrote: "Let's not be so blind to think that mankind knows all the intricacies of how the univese works."

Exactly. And then lets not just shove any old ideas in because we think there's a gap that needs explaining.

Ed Wagemann wrote: "All the parts that are involved for giving humans consciousness are derived from the universe. So logically, where else could consciousness come from, if not from the universe??? "

Again this is the same old argument long refuted since Greek times. Certainly consciousness arises from the universe, but that does not mean that the universe is consciousness. The works of Shakespeare arise from the complex interplay of up to 50 characters repeated in different patterns, this does not mean that the alphabet is a Shakespearean sonnet. A cell we can say is alive but separate out every atom and you will not find a living one and will indeed extinguish the very life you study as you do.

Consciousness may be a consequence of the universe, it does not automatically follow that the universe is a consequence of consciousness any more than your parents are a consequence of your existence because you are a consequence of theirs.

[Ed]

I've never said that the universe is a consequence of consciousness. So let's not get wrapped up in trying to play the typically boring "Gotcha" game here fellas.

Lets go over some "facts", which aren't really facts but for arguments sake that's what I'm calling them - if you have a better word for these things, them by all means we can use your term.

~The universe is estimated to be 20 BILLION years old.
~Our sun is perhaps 4 billion years old.
~The human race is only about 250,000 years old.
~There are BILLIONS of galaxies in the "VISIBLE" universe. Most likely an INFINITE number of galaxies beyond what our limited perceptions allow us to percieve.

Okay, so keeping these "facts" in mind, how strange is it that in an infinite universe that is over 20 Billion years old that something as complicated and bascially undefinable as modern human conscoiusness took only 250,000 years to come into being and all within the space of one little marble in a dinky little solar system in a far of galaxy?

[Ed]

You are actually contributing to the point I'm making Robb. Concsiousness is not something that just popped up out of nowhere. Its existence is right there, within the atoms and particles that make up the universe.

[Ed]

You're confused Robb. A house and consciousness are not the same thing. They are not even close. Not even in the same ball park.

It seems to me that you agree that consciousness came from the universe, correct?

[Gary]

Ed Wagemann wrote: "Okay, so keeping these "facts" in mind, how strange is it that in an infinite universe that is over 20 Billion years old that something as complicated and bascially undefinable as modern human conscoiusness took only 250,000 years to come into being and all within the space of one little marble in a dinky little solar system in a far of galaxy? "

Not very unlikely since as you mention there was billions upon billions of places that it could have happened. It's the infinite monkeys writing Shakespeare comparison.

Besides we know that abiogenesis occurred quite quickly after the Earth cooled enough to allow it. So therefore it may be so likely that the universe is full of life.

[Gary]

Ed Wagemann wrote: "You are actually contributing to the point I'm making Robb. Concsiousness is not something that just popped up out of nowhere. Its existence is right there, within the atoms and particles that make up the universe. "

Do atoms have books in them? By your argument they must of if "books" made up of atoms and particles have "popped up".

Consciousness is a complex form of thinking that includes abstract thought and self awareness. This requires thinking and perception of sufficient complexity. Both of these are processes, not physical "things". Consciousness is not a ghostly force any more than the "gaze" from your eyes projects your perception.

[Gary]

Robb wrote: "It really sounded at first that you were claiming inanimate objects were conscious. "

He is.

[Ed]

No, I didn't claim that inanimate objects are conscious. What I said was that inanimate objects - like the atoms in our bodies for instance - are connected to consciousness. When we make a conscious decision to scratch our nose, their are atoms in our bodies that react to that conscious decision. Therefore those atoms in our body are connected to consciousness.

Imagine that you were a microscopic little creature on an atom inside of a person's body. And that person decided to scratch their nose. From your microscopic perspective of that atom you would have no idea that that atom was in motion because of some conscious decision that the person scratching his nose is making, now would you? None the less, that atom would be in motion due to a conscious decision.

gary writes:Not very unlikely since as you mention there was billions upon billions of places that it could have happened. It's the infinite monkeys writing Shakespeare comparison.

Besides we know that abiogenesis occurred quite quickly after the Earth cooled enough to allow it. So therefore it may be so likely that the universe is full of life.

Thats exactly my point

[Gary]

Ed Wagemann wrote: "No, I didn't claim that inanimate objects are conscious."

Didn't you elsewhere posit the idea that since particles were "aware" of each other via electromagnetic force and similar that they therefore were conscious of each other?

Ed Wagemann wrote: "What I said was that inanimate objects - like the atoms in our bodies for instance - are connected to consciousness."

Exactly what is this "connection" what is it formed of and how does it connect to a concept rather than a force or particle?

Ed Wagemann wrote: "When we make a conscious decision to scratch our nose, their are atoms in our bodies that react to that conscious decision. Therefore those atoms in our body are connected to consciousness."

Or the atoms involved in moving the hand are being influenced by the atoms that form the basis for the conscious process located in the brain which is influenced by the atoms in the nerve from the nose.

You are still treating consciousness like an object or ghostly force.

Ed Wagemann wrote: "None the less, that atom would be in motion due to a conscious decision."

Just as if you were a hypothetical entity from the point of view of an atom within a neuron in the brain you would be unaware that the electrical signal that went past you was involved in the process of consciousness or if it was part of an unthinking process in a finger or a rock. However given the volume of human brains compared to the volume of non-thinking matter in the universe you'd be better betting that it was non-conscious.

Ed Wagemann wrote: "Thats exactly my point"

Good. So that means that life, complex life and complex intelligence is not unlikely to arise somewhere within a complex universe even if the majority of it is empty, lifeless, conscious-less space. So there is no need to postulate that somehow consciousness pervades the entire universe looking for somewhere to happen.