[ExI] Science or Scientism?

Sat Nov 10 00:04:11 UTC 2018

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:27 AM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 11:03 AM Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018, 09:39 John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com wrote:
>>
>
>
>> >>...But that sort of argument comes from people who have rejected the
>>> idea that God is a intelligent conscious BEING...
>>>
>>
>> Just curious, what do you think makes the matter in our brains conscious?
>>
>
> I think there is not a infinite sequence of "why" questions and after a
> finite number of them the sequence terminates in a brute fact. I think it's
> a brute fact that consciousness is the way data feel when it is being
> processed.
>

Yes, we are in agreement with one another.  I am not sure how you define
"data" though.

> By that logic, let's consider if your brain was without a particular
>> module, say Broca's area.  You're still consicous, but aphasic.
>>
>
> I have no idea if that's true or not because I still have my Broca's area.
> Maybe I wouldn't be conscious if I didn't have a left big toe, but unless I
> cut off my toe I'll never know.
>

Well it's not my fault you're not willing to cut your toe off to test it,
then.

> Now add in the Broca's area.  Would you not say that this is a more
>> expansive consicous entity?
>>
>> Now add a whole other human Brian you're passing information back and
>> forth with.  You mean to tell me this dyad is not a more expansive
>> conscious entity than a single brain?  Is the brain a magic special thing
>> that is the only unit of consciousness?
>>
>> I thought we got rid of vitalism last century.
>>
>>
>
>> > In my humble opinion, given the evidence that the matter in our brains
>> is conscious,
>>
>
> What's with this "our" business?
>

You can't be a solipsist, sorry; don't worry, if you were the only thing
that existed I would tell you.

> and that is composed of smaller conscious units (cf. corpus callosotomy,)
>> and that the universe is made of the same matter of our brains, and that
>> everything in the universe is physically contiguous in spacetime because of
>> our birth from a singularity, it is quite clear that whatever the universe
>> is has consciousness similar to and more expansive than any of its
>> constituent parts.  You may say we are too separate in time from the rest
>> of the universe to be connected in a consicous manner, but how is that
>> different from the nanoseconds it takes to pass information from neuron to
>> neuron?
>>
>> No, I think it is quite rational given overt evidence in the form of
>> scientific studies in matter and spacetime, and in the form of observing
>> our own consciousness, that the universe itself is indeed consicous.
>>
>
>
> Not only do we not know enough about consicousness to say it only resides
>> in brains,
>>
>
> I have no way of knowing about your brain I can only know about my own and
> I know that when my brain changes my consciousness changes and when my
> consciousness changes my brain changes. And I know I am literally not the
> man I once was, the atoms that are in my brain today came from last years
> mashed potatoes. I know that Evolution produced me and I know Evolution can
> see intelligent  behavior but it can't see consciousness any better than we
> can directly see consciousness in others, and yet Evolution produced me and
> I know from direct experience that I am conscious. My theory to explain
> this is that consciousness is a byproduct of intelligence, and that is the
> only reason I have for believing that my fellow human beings are conscious
> when they take a calculus exam but are not conscious when they are sleeping
> or under anesthesia or dead.
>

What makes you believe that?

> *> Your error is equating 'God' with the childish notion that an
>> anthropomorphic bearded male figure,*
>>
>
> It's not a error to ask for a definition. I don't think being male or
> having a beard is a vital characteristic that defines the word "God", but
> being intelligent and conscious seems like a minimum requirement to me.
>

How is the universe different than the "data" you talk about being
processed?  What are the guidelines for whether something is considered
"data"?

> *who thinks like a human,*
>>
>
> I don't demand  God think like a human but I do demand God be able to
> think, and if He can't think better than me I'm not going to worship Him,
> He should be worshiping me.
>

You ARE it.  As am I.  Just not all of it.  I think that the sum total of
all humans certainly thinks better than you, for starters.  Unless you mean
to tell me you can personally beat the combined acheivements of Newton,
Einstein, et al.?  All of whom received their data from previous humans and
human cultural objects.  I don't understand why you would think that the
consciousness of one human you are looking at, with two observed
hemispheres in the brain that are separately functional in terms of
information processing but also integrated, is any different in flavor from
the consciousness of, two humans--say, a couple or business duo, but also
anyone--with two observed whole brains that are separately functional in
terms of information processing but also integrated.  Except for that the
latter is bigger and more powerful.

> *controls the universe and can alter causality. *
>>
>
> If God can't do that than He is more like a comic book superhero, or
> supervillain, or a Greek god, or a Jupiter Brain.
> And it came to pass the supercomputer was asked the question everybody wanted
> answered  "Is there a God?" and after a few seconds the supercomputer
> replied in a deep sonorous voice "THERE IS NOW!"
>

My conception of 'God' is indeed like a Jupiter Brain, except on the time
scales that separate entire civilizations (which were originally physically
contiguous) and not the time scales of intelligent-being-made
computations.  I just happen to take the events leading up to the formation
of the Jupiter Brain as part of the consciousness, in a way.  I don't think
it makes sense to have a cutoff for what you consider "data".  Are genes
data?  What about crystalline structures, which are self-replicating?  Or
molecular forms in general, are they data?  Are the orbitals of an atom
data?  What about a book that multiple people have contributed to, or the
schematic to build a nuclear reactor?  What about an email listhost?

> John K Clark
>

William B Steinberg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20181109/3eeffd24/attachment.html>