It's easier, by Occam's Razor, to simply accept that this is the way things are. — Unseen
So, we have a door closing as a result of an action of a conscious being, yet the act of the door closing is random. The same problem remains - probability for us to exist, as a result of randomness, regardless of a form through which randomness executes, is mathematical or absolute 0%. — Henri
The bit about the probability for us to exist being a mathematical and/or 'absolute' 0% is rubbish. In order to know the probability of an outcome/event one must know all of the influencing factors as well as all of the possible outcomes. — creativesoul
...can you understand that probability for random-based existence is mathematical or absolute 0%... — Henri
How many outcomes are possible? What are the factors influencing and/or determining each? Are you saying that you need not know the answers to the above two questions in order to know the probability of an outcome? — creativesoul
I am saying that you can calculate probability with whatever information you have. That's what method of probability is for. The more information you have, the closest is result to the fact. It's a probability. Not a fact. But when you can calculate, with the information we have, 0% probability, that's game over, although it's still not a fact. It's a probability. — Henri
Gratuitous assertions are not acceptable here. — creativesoul
It's easier, by Occam's Razor, to simply accept that this is the way things are.
— Unseen
Actually, it is a definition of crazy to accept that one with 0% chance is how things are. Ironically, randomness is one which is magical in your vocabulary, and God, who is the existence, is actually easier to accept. If normal thought is applied.
By the way, you keep mentioning Zeus, for example, in your inquiry about who is God. You should at least be aware that Zeus is a claim for a god in certain sense, just as Michael Jordan is a god to some people, in certain sense. But Zeus is not a claim for God. And God is not a god. At least understand a claim when you pretend to argue about it.
Anyway, it's nonsense piled upon nonsense, starting from first post, and people are reading it and nobody says a thing. — Henri
Criterion, criterion, criterion...
What do all known examples of thought/belief have in common such that it makes them what they are? What does all thought/belief consist of such that it can autonomously emerge onto the world stage in it's entirety in the simplest possible 'form' and continue to autonomously grow and/or gain in it's complexity all the way up to and/or including common language acquisition and/or mastery?
Would you at least agree with positing that there are such basic requirements, given the subject matter is human experience and consciousness? — creativesoul
A physical system manifests itself only by interacting with another. The description of a physical system, then, is always given in relation to another physical system, one with which it interacts. Any description of a system is therefore always a description of the information which a system has about another system, that is to say, the correlation between the two systems. — Carlo Rovelli
In short, according to IIT, consciousness requires a grouping of elements within a system that have physical cause-effect power upon one another. This in turn implies that only reentrant architecture consisting of feedback loops, whether neural or computational, will realize consciousness. Such groupings make a difference to themselves, not just to outside observers. This constitutes integrated information. Of the various groupings within a system that possess such causal power, one will do so maximally. This local maximum of integrated information is identical to consciousness.
First, following from the fundamental Cartesian insight, is the axiom of existence. Consciousness is real and undeniable; moreover, a subject’s consciousness has this reality intrinsically; it exists from its own perspective.
Second, consciousness has composition. In other words, each experience has structure. Color and shape, for example, structure visual experience. Such structure allows for various distinctions.
Third is the axiom of information: the way an experience is distinguishes it from other possible experiences. An experience specifies; it is specific to certain things, distinct from others.
Fourth, consciousness has the characteristic of integration. The elements of an experience are interdependent. For example, the particular colors and shapes that structure a visual conscious state are experienced together. As we read these words, we experience the font-shape and letter-color inseparably. We do not have isolated experiences of each and then add them together. This integration means that consciousness is irreducible to separate elements. Consciousness is unified.
Fifth, consciousness has the property of exclusion. Every experience has borders. Precisely because consciousness specifies certain things, it excludes others. Consciousness also flows at a particular speed.
Third, because consciousness is informative, it must specify, or distinguish one experience from others. IIT calls the cause-effect powers of any given mechanism within a system its cause-effect repertoire. The cause-effect repertoires of all the system’s mechanistic elements taken together, it calls its cause-effect structure. This structure, at any given point, is in a particular state. In complex structures, the number of possible states is very high. For a structure to instantiate a particular state is for it to specify that state. The specified state is the particular way that the system is making a difference to itself.
In any case, I disagree with your earlier statement that biology is required for experience, so I expect we have some discussion coming there. — Possibility
If you can't show the math you should not post these conclusions. — 3rdClassCitizen
can we only find a trace of a form of experience which would be the proper term for the root of experience? Like we're trapped in our vessel by an event that keeps encircling us, so the original force is now only traceable.
It's likely sexual energy is the intelligence of sperm, so to speak, and it's how babies form, static created by sperm species in the womb mechanism. — Schzophr
I like the notion of consciousness being existentially dependent upon groupings of basic elements(consciousness "requires"...). There seems a potential issue with talking about the groupings 'making a difference to themselves', and then calling that making of a difference to themselves "integrated information". Leaves me guessing how we can possible say that certain groupings of certain elements are even capable of 'making a difference to themselves'. — creativesoul
I noticed this, too. As I said, it’s a work in progress. And I think relying on Descartes does the theory more harm than good. — Possibility
My earlier quote from Rovelli offers a different way of looking at it, by pointing out that we can only talk about ourselves in relation to our interaction with a system that is not ourselves.
This is grounded in quantum mechanics and Shannon’s information theory. Applied to consciousness, it’ll make your head spin - but you may notice it doesn’t sit well with Descartes.
Any theory of consciousness that leans on quantum mechanics for justificatory ground carries along with it a notion of disembodied cognition(yet another mind/body dualism). That is a consequence of an inadequate understanding regarding the mental ongoings that predate and facilitate language acquisition and it's subsequent use(pre and/or nonlinguistic thought/belief). — creativesoul
Having acquired a good grasp of what all human thought/belief consists of, I'm subsequently acquiring a relatively good grasp of how human thought/belief emerges, serves as a basis for subsequent thought/belief, is accrued, and gains complexity. — creativesoul
Any theory of consciousness that leans on quantum mechanics for justificatory ground carries along with it a notion of disembodied cognition(yet another mind/body dualism). That is a consequence of an inadequate understanding regarding the mental ongoings that predate and facilitate language acquisition and it's subsequent use(pre and/or nonlinguistic thought/belief).
— creativesoul
Could you explain this? I’m not talking about disembodied cognition, so I’m not sure where you drew this conclusion. — Possibility
In my view, the ‘groupings making a difference to themselves’ make more sense understood in terms of basic chemistry... [snip] ...But chemical process (as I see it) establishes a relationship of interaction between particles (I prefer to call it a relationship system) that produces entropy (‘awareness’ of time directional ‘time’ information). This relationship is finite and dependent on the elements involved, their respective positions and velocity in spacetime, available energy, etc. — Possibility
With physical stimulus-response, the interaction is instantaneous: there is no experience of time.
While the process is active, the relationship system (or ‘grouping’) functions as an entity: it is able to interact with other particles or relationship systems and integrate information - and all of its elements have potential access to that information (ie. awareness) for as long as the chemical process lasts. Depending on the nature of that process, it could be over in an instant or last long enough for the relationship system to interact with several other entities across spacetime - and possibly even engage in other chemical processes, establishing a complex relationship system that has relationship systems operating within it...
↪Pattern-chaser
No, you are not misreading it. No knowledge is possible at all without consciousness. Why?
Because to be conscious is to be aware. And you can't have knowledge of X without being aware of X. Because being aware of something and having knowledge of it is the same thing. — luckswallowsall
But I do think that nobody knows there is a noise if nobody exists to know of the noise. — luckswallowsall
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.