Opinions of atheism
-
yeah. that was why i brought it up. The Lecturer i spoke to mentioned that consciousness is the last black box that science has to face. He thinks wad is needed is greater leaps in our current base of knowledge and to synthesize the different disciplines of maths, physics, biology and psychology before we will be able to even touch the surface consciousness. pretty cool if u ask meOriginally posted by nomood:
that's where it starts to go very vague. To my knowledge, nobody is sure why humans have evolved beyond what was needed for survival.
"sentinality" is really one aspect in which science has problem defining. in the context of evolution however, if we were to take it as anything beyond survival instincts, there are other creatures which may be considered sentinal. eg: elephant herds have been known to divide into societies, and it has also been observed that the matriarch of an elephant herd may pay respects to a deceased matriach of another herd. ie: the creation of a basic feudal society.
I hope that answers the question. -
yes.Originally posted by ben1xy:so u reckon emotions could be programmed via algorithms and the likes? but what about consciousness and self identity? would algorithms be able to do that?
we do know that emotions come from rise in certain chemical changes in our body. And we can already emulate it by using drugs. Happy pills, amphetamines, etc...
It's really a matter of how and what you do with the information on hand. Imagining it with our current level of technology may make it sound quite incredulous, but I truly have no doubt that it's only a matter of time before someone decodes the human conciousness. -
consciousness. It's like knowing that you are being. Example, a computer can do stuff, but do they have individualism? Do they have self-awareness?Originally posted by stupidissmart:Consciousness or conscience ? My thinking is tat conscienceness is developed when men learn to live together. Helping another teammate when he is in trouble make the team stronger and help themselves survive better in the long run and thus make them more fitter to survive. Emotions help survival too since "sadness" and "happiness" make them strive to live better. "sadness" may arise from pain so tat u will not do an action tat will hurt your body and "happiness" when u find food so u can survive better. Emotion get richer as beings evolved.
In studies, some scholars try to proof consciousness by theorizing that if an animal can see recognize itself in its reflection, it has consciousness. Seems a bit dodgy if u ask me. As i find the construct to not be a yes/ no thing, but more of different levels of consciousness.
hmm, i still think i am not explaining it properly. -
yeah. it's something that evolutionist struggle with. It's nature is so tacit that it gives reseachers problemsOriginally posted by nomood:yes, but survival only on a very primary level. Lions band together to hunt, but you don't see them paying each other respects, greeting one another ya?
sentinal thinking and feelings are the things which supposedly transcends survival, which, admittedly is really really difficult to mess with. -
but how do u decode something that has no properties? U feel angry, sad, etc. different chemical reactions happen (which like u rightly pointed out.. can be controlled). But consciousness, that's like exploration into space.Originally posted by nomood:It's really a matter of how and what you do with the information on hand. Imagining it with our current level of technology may make it sound quite incredulous, but I truly have no doubt that it's only a matter of time before someone decodes the human conciousness. -
Originally posted by ben1xy:so u reckon emotions could be programmed via algorithms and the likes? but what about consciousness and self identity? would algorithms be able to do that?
My answer would be yes too. If you let me cut open your brain and you're not underanaesthetics (nope you won't feel pain in your brain... lol), I can send electrical signals on specific areas on your brain and make you laugh and cry. It's been done before on both monkeys and humans.Originally posted by nomood:yes.
we do know that emotions come from rise in certain chemical changes in our body. And we can already emulate it by using drugs. Happy pills, amphetamines, etc...
It's really a matter of how and what you do with the information on hand. Imagining it with our current level of technology may make it sound quite incredulous, but I truly have no doubt that it's only a matter of time before someone decodes the human conciousness.
Consciousness and self-identity can be altered if I alter your memories. There has been cases of people who lost their memories and live entirely different lifes. What you see in yourself can easily be changed.
Yes, sadly, that doesn't make us humans any special. -
ok. let me play the devil's advocate. They might be laughing or crying, but do they feel real joy or grief? Maybe they should do it on a human .. then that person can explain it to usOriginally posted by kaister:My answer would be yes too. If you let me cut open your brain and you're not underanaesthetics (nope you won't feel pain in your brain... lol), I can send electrical signals on specific areas on your brain and make you laugh and cry. It's been done before on both monkeys and humans.
self identity doesn't equate consciousness though. would u not agree? consciousness is more an awareness of being.Originally posted by kaister:Consciousness and self-identity can be altered if I alter your memories. There has been cases of people who lost their memories and live entirely different lifes. What you see in yourself can easily be changed.
Yes, sadly, that doesn't make us humans any special. -
We've already conquered space. We've already decoded the human genome. What else is impossible?Originally posted by ben1xy:but how do u decode something that has no properties? U feel angry, sad, etc. different chemical reactions happen (which like u rightly pointed out.. can be controlled). But consciousness, that's like exploration into space.
As I've said before, consciousness can be taken away in some ways. By removing memory or by removing certain bits of your brain. Heard of retrograde amnesia? A person who lost his memory is as good as rebooting a computer. Given different education and social environment, he might become an entirely different person.
Science does not explain everything but we're getting there. -
What do you mean by awareness of being? Define for me please.Originally posted by ben1xy:self identity doesn't equate consciousness though. would u not agree? consciousness is more an awareness of being. -
that's the whole point of science.Originally posted by kaister:Science does not explain everything but we're getting there. -
Actually yes. When those operations were done, the human specimen was alive and able to communicate. That's how we mapped out the motor and sensation cortex. Go look it up.Originally posted by ben1xy:ok. let me play the devil's advocate. They might be laughing or crying, but do they feel real joy or grief? Maybe they should do it on a human .. then that person can explain it to us Twisted Evil
What do you mean by real joy? How would one define real joy? -
in a very crude way, allow me to propose that one could possibly take away your "awareness of being" by altering your personal perception of yourself.Originally posted by ben1xy:self identity doesn't equate consciousness though. would u not agree? consciousness is more an awareness of being.
I'm not sure what you mean by self identity dosen't equate conciousness; but at very least i think you would ahve to agree that self identity is a very large part of it.
the earlier point was that, evolution can't explain concious thoughts; or rather, does it in a very crude manner, which i concede.
But now we're talking on an entirely different level; where "awareness of being" is really something that can be toyed with. -
dun get me wrong, i am sure sciece can advance way beyond my imagination. To me it feels like this; science has not yet been able to explain religion right. Which makes me wonder whether it'l be be able to explain consciousness.Originally posted by kaister:We've already conquered space. We've already decoded the human genome. What else is impossible?
As I've said before, consciousness can be taken away in some ways. By removing memory or by removing certain bits of your brain. Heard of retrograde amnesia? A person who lost his memory is as good as rebooting a computer. Given different education and social environment, he might become an entirely different person.
Science does not explain everything but we're getting there.
Another interesting thing that came up was this issue. If science could explain miracles, does that make the miracles any less miraculous? we probably can talk abt this another time. The consciousness thing is proving to be a handful as it is -
if it has been really done on humans.. i will concede the point thenOriginally posted by kaister:Actually yes. When those operations were done, the human specimen was alive and able to communicate. That's how we mapped out the motor and sensation cortex. Go look it up.
What do you mean by real joy? How would one define real joy?
-
To me, it feels like religion hasn't been able to explain itself right. Science merely challenges it...Originally posted by ben1xy:To me it feels like this; science has not yet been able to explain religion right. -
a baby has no memories (if u cross out the memories in the womb). however, it has an awareness. within days it can recognise his/her mother. it recognise him/her - self as a being. u get where i am drifting to?Originally posted by kaister:What do you mean by awareness of being? Define for me please. -
sorry nomood and kaister. i need to take a rain check and call my gf. hahaa. i will continue this some other time. If it's any consolation. it's been really enlightening.
-
Actually your arguement fringes on the issue of pro-choice vs pro-life. I would need a better analogy that's more agreeable by most.Originally posted by ben1xy:a baby has no memories (if u cross out the memories in the womb). however, it has an awareness. within days it can recognise his/her mother. it recognise him/her - self as a being. u get where i am drifting to?
Edit: spelling -
Well said.Originally posted by nomood:To me, it feels like religion hasn't been able to explain itself right. Science merely challenges it... -
u sound like my female activist friend. hahaOriginally posted by kaister:Actually your arguement fringes on the issue of pro-choice vs pro-life. I would need a better analogue that's more agreeable by most.
a recognition of living then? a person with amnesia might have lost memories, but he still recognises that he is alive. Are u familiar with the ghost in the machine arguement and the proposition on the non-reductive physicalism (dual-aspect monism) and Reductive physicalism? we could look at it from that perspective if you want to -
hmm. which religion sits best with u thus far? this is more out of personal curiousity. its ok if u don't want to replyOriginally posted by nomood:To me, it feels like religion hasn't been able to explain itself right. Science merely challenges it... -
I'm not an expert on all these philosophical approaches, but I shall try.Originally posted by ben1xy:u sound like my female activist friend. haha
a recognition of living then? a person with amnesia might have lost memories, but he still recognises that he is alive. Are u familiar with the ghost in the machine arguement and the proposition on the non-reductive physicalism (dual-aspect monism) and Reductive physicalism? we could look at it from that perspective if you want to
Ghost in the machine arguement attempts to separate the mind from the physical body. It is a flawed arguement from a scientific point of view. A very simple example, would be the injury of the brain. If the mind and body are seperable, why would anyone lose some of their mental functions when their brain is injured? We can see that in patients who lost parts of their frontal lobe and became aggressive in natural. A change in their state of mind linked to a change in their physical form.
Mind and body are one and inseparable - reduction physicalism if you may.
As for the recognition of living as awareness of self is pretty dodgy. How would one recognise that he/she is not living? We can't really tell for sure. So how about another definition of awareness of self? -
hmm, i think we're straying off again because we cannot agree on consciousnessOriginally posted by kaister:I'm not an expert on all these philosophical approaches, but I shall try.
Ghost in the machine arguement attempts to separate the mind from the physical body. It is a flawed arguement from a scientific point of view. A very simple example, would be the injury of the brain. If the mind and body are seperable, why would anyone lose some of their mental functions when their brain is injured? We can see that in patients who lost parts of their frontal lobe and became aggressive in natural. A change in their state of mind linked to a change in their physical form.
Is a dog aware it is alive? what abt a goldfish?Originally posted by kaister:Mind and body are one and inseparable - reduction physicalism if you may.
As for the recognition of living as awareness of self is pretty dodgy. How would one recognise that he/she is not living? We can't really tell for sure. So how about another definition of awareness of self?
As i stated earlier, studies conducted deem the litmus test to be a recognition of a reflection. A computer has no self awareness. An ant might be part of a collective conscious. A bird might have a higher level of consciousness but yet it still cannot identify a reflection. Thus far, i think only monkeys, apes and dolphins are able to do so. Of course humans too. Before i go off tangent. i think the best definition is an awareness of self. i know i am living, i know what i am doing now and i can plan for what i am doing tomorrow. am i geeting closer to a definition that satisfy u? -
I'm pretty sure we're all aware we are alive but separation of mind from body would also mean awareness of the death as well as awareness of living. So, IMHO, it's almost impossible to prove the question either way. Unless someone who's dead comes back to tell us he's dead and I don't mean those near-death experience cos' they are very debatable.Originally posted by ben1xy:Is a dog aware it is alive? what abt a goldfish?
As i stated earlier, studies conducted deem the litmus test to be a recognition of a reflection. A computer has no self awareness. An ant might be part of a collective conscious. A bird might have a higher level of consciousness but yet it still cannot identify a reflection. Thus far, i think only monkeys, apes and dolphins are able to do so. Of course humans too. Before i go off tangent. i think the best definition is an awareness of self. i know i am living, i know what i am doing now and i can plan for what i am doing tomorrow. am i geeting closer to a definition that satisfy u?
As you can see, the definition of consciousness will always be hard to agree on, and cannot be proven. In the end, it'll be a discussion of definition. You agree with me?
Some atheists believe in life after death but I'm not one of them. So I guess I don't represent them when I say that I believe in reduction physicalism. -
haha, 2 seperate topics and we can't agree on the definition on both. I'm sure that 1 day we will ... somehowOriginally posted by kaister:I'm pretty sure we're all aware we are alive but separation of mind from body would also mean awareness of the death as well as awareness of living. So, IMHO, it's almost impossible to prove the question either way. Unless someone who's dead comes back to tell us he's dead and I don't mean those near-death experience cos' they are very debatable.
As you can see, the definition of consciousness will always be hard to agree on, and cannot be proven. In the end, it'll be a discussion of definition. You agree with me?
Some atheists believe in life after death but I'm not one of them. So I guess I don't represent them when I say that I believe in reduction physicalism.