Physicist Claims To Have Solved the Mystery of Consciousness

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes I like to say... The dilemma is, science has to accept that there is something where there is supposed to be nothing, while religion has to accept that there is nothing where they thought something to be.

My impression is religion would have a much harder time to accept such a paradigm shift, than science... But it's coming.
I'm very curious about the spin that's gonna be put on it. Because whatever, it will make sure to keep us under...

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: TheRedneck

My impression is religion would have a much harder time to accept such a paradigm shift, than science... But it's coming.

I agree.

Sam Harris came to the conclusion something more is going on: "WAKING UP -- A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion"

a reply to: Terpene

Meh this thread isn't about proving/disproving God. It's a chicken/egg over thoughts and the brain - do you animate it or does it animate you. God could operate either way.

For disproving to occur, we would havereach thoroughly beyond space/time. I see no way we do that anytime soon.

No, but it sounds like they have a pretty good equation. Second grade math. Now the question in the OP Im still trying to figure..Will it be programmable? Patented consciousness? I think Yes, and Yes..My question is will there be a debate on organics of the deal..of course there will be..I see tons of terminal crashes with it…A way to make a computer 'feel'.

a reply to: lonerpt

originally posted by: didntasktobeborned
No, but it sounds like they have a pretty good equation. Second grade math. Now the question in the OP Im still trying to figure..Will it be programmable? Patented consciousness? I think Yes, and Yes..My question is will there be a debate on organics of the deal..of course there will be..I see tons of terminal crashes with it…A way to make a computer 'feel'.

a reply to: lonerpt

You actually read the article.

Second grade math?

Okay, maybe not second grade, but straightforward..

a reply to: Annee

a reply to: SLAYER69

Looks to me like nothing has been solved. Consciousness itself still cannot be measured or observed. There is still no proof that the brain produces consciousness. You can measure electrical activity inside a TV. You can damage the TV. You can kill the TV. However, the signal that produced your favorite show originates nowhere near the TV, is still pristine, and is not dependent on the TV to exist. Anyone not knowing where the signal comes from is going to think the TV produces it and will assume measurements taken from the internal workings of the TV prove that.

a reply to: Annee

If you get to decide what I believe, I get to decide what you believe.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Terpene

Science and organized religion are both run by people. People have a tendency to protect beliefs they hold when they feel they are under attack. That's not a religious or a scientific phenomenon; it's a human phenomenon.

I'll say this: I can look at work like that which started this thread, and I have absolutely no qualms about what it may show. If it follows scientific methods, it will show the truth. I'm good with truth. However, this thread is full of those who feel the overwhelming need to turn the discussion away from the work presented and into the realm of personal belief systems. Everyone is entitled to believe as they will - that's the basis of freedom of religion - but their actions indicate to me the extent of their faith in those beliefs.

TheRedneck

a reply to: didntasktobeborned

We can already make a computer have "emotions." All that is needed is to define different responses based on different levels of "emotion," and then use inputs to determine which "emotion" the computer is supposed to "feel." I can't find my book on that at the moment, but I remember reading it some years back and found the idea both fascinating and hilarious.

Of course, that would serve no actual purpose other than proof of concept. The "emotions" would also just be variables programmed into the software... there would be no actual cognizance of what those emotions meant, because a computer is just a machine.

The difference between that and a person experiencing emotions is that the variables for determining the appropriate emotion are self-programmed via learned/instinctive neural pathways. The results of emotional states are also self-programmed. For example, Annee can say something I find quite offensive, but it is then within my ability to ignore it or discount it; a computer would not have such ability.

Come to think of it, that actually describes the "Karen" phenomenon pretty well... hmmm... which makes me wonder if the cause of that phenomenon is not a stunted spiritual intelligence in favor of Pavlovian intelligence. I'll need to consider this possibility some more; please forgive the "stream of consciousness" comments.

TheRedneck

a reply to: spacemanjupiter

You can damage the TV. You can kill the TV. However, the signal that produced your favorite show originates nowhere near the TV, is still pristine, and is not dependent on the TV to exist. Anyone not knowing where the signal comes from is going to think the TV produces it and will assume measurements taken from the internal workings of the TV prove that.

Thank you! That is a perfect description of how I view spiritual intelligence, were the TV able to communicate in both directions!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Terpene

Science and organized religion are both run by people. People have a tendency to protect beliefs they hold when they feel they are under attack. That's not a religious or a scientific phenomenon; it's a human phenomenon.

I'll say this: I can look at work like that which started this thread, and I have absolutely no qualms about what it may show. If it follows scientific methods, it will show the truth. I'm good with truth. However, this thread is full of those who feel the overwhelming need to turn the discussion away from the work presented and into the realm of personal belief systems. Everyone is entitled to believe as they will - that's the basis of freedom of religion - but their actions indicate to me the extent of their faith in those beliefs.

TheRedneck

I'll bite .
For your tolerance I applaud you .
Concerning the 'those who turn away the thread' - that is me .
But it only appéars as if I'm deviating from the subject .
See - apart from the fact that what I've said you will never hear anywhere else -
your science is by definition uncapable to make any suggestions about 'consciousness' .
She disqualifies herself because of her very nature :
projecting workable models upon cause and effect
this , ond this ONLY .
'Consciousness' far exeeds her
and that some bloke poses some 'scientific theory' says nothing about it's truth .

That all these 'scientists' are busy with mapping the brain
- with the only goal to eventually enslave you and your people ,
since she works for the Dragon
and her so-called "nice and usable inventions" are part of the honeytrap -
says nothing about 'consciousness itself'
but only about this silly vehicle which is the ape that we dwell in .

a reply to: lonerpt

Concerning the 'those who turn away the thread' - that is me .

Not exclusively.

your science is by definition uncapable to make any suggestions about 'consciousness' .

It's not "my science." It's just science. Observable, repeatable science. It's not always perfect, but it's the best tool we have to discover how things work. Why things work the way they do... that is religion.

that some bloke poses some 'scientific theory' says nothing about it's truth .

Of course not. Every hypothesis must be questioned; that is the crux of the Scientific Method. However, this particular hypothesis agrees with my own work. So guess I am that "some bloke."

By the same token, you can be considered "some bloke" with your own views. That doesn't make them true either. The researchers have published evidence and reasoned supposition on how consciousness can arise; I have done the same. You have presented nothing more than some vision you claim to have seen, which directly contradicts the Biblical scriptures and dismisses any evidence that might disagree with it.

That all these 'scientists' are busy with mapping the brain
- with the only goal to eventually enslave you and your people ,
since she works for the Dragon

I assure you, I in no way work for any dragon.

TheRedneck

a reply to: SLAYER69

This solves nothing and it has nothing to do with experience. Qualia is called the hard problem and a pattern doesn't tell you anything about the cause of the pattern or the experience itself.

For instance,

A person can be happy because they're a serial killer that just killed their latest victim.

You can get that pattern because a woman is about to marry her childhood sweetheart.

That pattern can emerge because a guy is happy that his shift at work is over.

Science tells you nothing about the cause of the pattern or the experience. Here's another example:

Your TV has all of these patterns and signals that let's one person watch House of the Dragon, another person is watching re-runs of Martin and another is watching a documentary on Edgar Mitchell.

The patterns and signals from the TV is just an interface that allows you to see these shows. The patterns and signals don't tell you why they chose to watch these shows or what they experienced while watching these shows.

As Hoffman said, these things are just interfaces that allows us to interact with reality in a 3 dimensional way. Reality is outside of our perception of time. So our experience of the distinctions between time is an illusion. That should make you ask, why do we see the world in such a way that limits us to 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time. What we call time might not even be time outside of our perception of it.

So our experiences are more real and bigger than our limited 3 dimensional shell.

originally posted by: spacemanjupiter
a reply to: SLAYER69

Looks to me like nothing has been solved. Consciousness itself still cannot be measured or observed. There is still no proof that the brain produces consciousness. You can measure electrical activity inside a TV. You can damage the TV. You can kill the TV. However, the signal that produced your favorite show originates nowhere near the TV, is still pristine, and is not dependent on the TV to exist. Anyone not knowing where the signal comes from is going to think the TV produces it and will assume measurements taken from the internal workings of the TV prove that.

I like this analogy.

As I said earlier -- I believe everything is energy. That energy evolved to have consciousness -- and physical is a manifestation/creation of energy.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee

If you get to decide what I believe, I get to decide what you believe.

TheRedneck

NO -- you don't.

When have I told you what to believe?

a reply to: Annee

Don't feel good does it?

Are you offended?

Well, think about that the next time you decide to say what Christians believe. You've done it several times in this thread alone... not what they have to believe, but what they believe.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee

Don't feel good does it?

Are you offended?

Well, think about that the next time you decide to say what Christians believe. You've done it several times in this thread alone... not what they have to believe, but what they believe.

TheRedneck

I realize I'm required to have the thick skin.

Due to the sensitivity of God believers.

Any mention of atheism in any post -- turns it into a swarm of God defenders -- who take over the entire thread.

a reply to: Annee

I realize I'm required to have the thick skin.

Don't worry. Even after someone proves that God exists, we won't take away your child sacrifices.

TheRedneck

a reply to: SLAYER69

I was researching - inspired from a book I am reading by a debunker of all things UFO and paranormal - that our brains hallucinate our consciousness, and so from my search for understanding I found this TED, "Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality" and I think it belongs here for the time being.