Intelligence: cosmic or personal

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

cosmic intelligence a reified universal consciousness?

1 Yes
0
No votes
2 No
3
50%
3 Maybe
3
50%
 
Total votes : 6

Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby Meno_ » Tue May 10, 2016 7:02 pm

If there is a cosmic intelligence, then it will guarantee the evolution of consciousness, along with that of the evolution of species. It will find a goal and a purpose, and a method by which evolution will act in ways to insure a union with it.(cosmic intelligence)

If there is universal consciousness without cosmic intelligence, then whether evolution will seek to develop cosmic intelligence, will depend on the chance occurances of various situations whereby such an intelligence may develop.

If there is neither cosmic intelligence, nor universal consciousness, then what purpose does evolution play in the furtherance of union with higher levels of realization?

Apply 1,2,3 to either of the above choices , when choosing among the options. You can change answers among the choices.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2220
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby Meno_ » Tue May 10, 2016 7:07 pm

Universal consciousness may pre-exist individual consciousness, because of the pre-existence of cosmic intelligence.

If this was not the case, evolution would not seek to develop higher types of created beings.

The reason for the existence of higher , more intelligent beings, is that such beings achieve a realization of being in the world, in the perfect and sublime state which only supremely intelligent beings can realize.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2220
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby Amorphos » Tue May 10, 2016 7:18 pm

Perhaps universal or cosmic intelligence and/or consciousness, would be a bit like aether of old – in physics; if existent it would be noticeable like the wind or what have you. Such a thing would direct things and I think the whole point is that there are no such things.

Instead of that a perhaps wiser creator/spirit, would place mind in metaposition. That way each individual instance of its utility of mind and physics e.g. us, would each have their own part to play in an open story.
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby Harbal » Tue May 10, 2016 8:48 pm

jerkey wrote:If there is universal consciousness without cosmic intelligence, then whether evolution will seek to develop cosmic intelligence, will depend on the chance occurances of various situations whereby such an intelligence may develop.

What if it turns out that there is cosmic consciousness with universal intelligence? How would that play out?
User avatar
Harbal
Thinker
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Sun May 03, 2015 12:53 pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby zinnat » Wed May 11, 2016 4:21 am

Consciousness does not evolve. It is what it is, and it is as it is.
It is only its quality/partner (mind) that evolves with the time.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby Amorphos » Fri May 13, 2016 8:05 pm

Consciousness does not evolve. It is what it is, and it is as it is.
It is only its quality/partner (mind) that evolves with the time.


So what was it when we were Neanderthals? And if we continue back down the evolutionary line, does it not change anywhere?

I think there may be a primordial consciousness which all life has, but surely it grows and develops?
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby James S Saint » Fri May 13, 2016 9:03 pm

One can have larger or smaller squares, but a square is a square.
One can have more or less consciousness, but consciousness is consciousness.

Such things have nothing to do with evolving.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25031
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby Amorphos » Fri May 13, 2016 11:23 pm

James S Saint wrote:One can have larger or smaller squares, but a square is a square.
One can have more or less consciousness, but consciousness is consciousness.

Such things have nothing to do with evolving.


not buying it...

so a germ has the same kind of consciousness as we do? Is intellect not a part of consciousness?

If it doesn't grow and evolve, what's the point? Can we not learn anything and change spiritually – ergo consciously?

Would a robotic consciousness be equal to ours? If we knew how the brain produces consciousness, and could mimic that artificially, would you not think there are different kinds and different amounts of consciousness ~ depending upon the schemata?

In Hinduism if I remember correctly, the soul has been through all the changes in the animal kingdom from one incarnation to the other ~ a progression.

awareness; are all things equally aware?

perception; is trained and honed, and is directly linked to intellectual capacity, no? it is certainly different in different creatures, and varies in sophistication and diversity.
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby Arminius » Sat May 14, 2016 12:27 am

jerkey wrote:If there is a cosmic intelligence, then it will guarantee the evolution of consciousness, along with that of the evolution of species. It will find a goal and a purpose, and a method by which evolution will act in ways to insure a union with it.(cosmic intelligence)

If there is universal consciousness without cosmic intelligence, then whether evolution will seek to develop cosmic intelligence, will depend on the chance occurances of various situations whereby such an intelligence may develop.

If there is neither cosmic intelligence, nor universal consciousness, then what purpose does evolution play in the furtherance of union with higher levels of realization?

Apply 1,2,3 to either of the above choices , when choosing among the options. You can change answers among the choices.

In your poll all of the three options "yes", "no", "maybe" can be selected. So what kind of result do you expect? How are you going to evaluate it?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5191
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby Meno_ » Sat May 14, 2016 12:41 am

This is a poll in progress, the method of evaluation is also progressive: it may or may not have method, the result could end up tentative and implicative.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2220
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby zinnat » Sat May 14, 2016 3:11 am

Amorphos wrote:
Consciousness does not evolve. It is what it is, and it is as it is.
It is only its quality/partner (mind) that evolves with the time.


So what was it when we were Neanderthals?

It was still the same as it is now.

And if we continue back down the evolutionary line, does it not change anywhere?

It never changed, irrespective of how much backwards you go.

I think there may be a primordial consciousness which all life has, but surely it grows and develops?

It is both eternal and unchangeable too, thus neither can grow nor develop.
Yes, its qualities/partner/associate evolve with time, but that is mind, not consciousness
.


with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby Arminius » Sat May 14, 2016 3:27 am

Amorphos wrote:
Consciousness does not evolve. It is what it is, and it is as it is.
It is only its quality/partner (mind) that evolves with the time.


So what was it when we were Neanderthals?

Probably, the Neanderthals were not our direct ancestors but another subspecies (homo sapiens neandethalensis) of the species homo sapiens or even another species (homo neandethalensis) of the genus homo. So, probably, the Neanderthals have the same ancestors as we have but are not our direct ancestors.

Amorphos wrote:And if we continue back down the evolutionary line, does it not change anywhere?

I think there may be a primordial consciousness which all life has, but surely it grows and develops?

There may be a primordial consciousness, but that does not necessarily mean that it grows and develops.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5191
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby James S Saint » Sat May 14, 2016 3:33 am

Amorphos wrote:
James S Saint wrote:One can have larger or smaller squares, but a square is a square.
One can have more or less consciousness, but consciousness is consciousness.

Such things have nothing to do with evolving.

so a germ has the same kind of consciousness as we do? Is intellect not a part of consciousness?

A germ might evolve to have more consciousness. Consciousness itself doesn't evolve any more than a square evolves.

Amorphos wrote:If it doesn't grow and evolve, what's the point? Can we not learn anything and change spiritually – ergo consciously?

The point of life is NOT to "grow and evolve". That is just one of those many propaganda ideas used upon you. You want to know why cockroaches have existed for so long? They don't listen to propaganda about how they have to evolve and change into what they are not.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25031
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby zinnat » Sat May 14, 2016 4:33 am

Amorphos wrote:
James S Saint wrote:One can have larger or smaller squares, but a square is a square.
One can have more or less consciousness, but consciousness is consciousness.

Such things have nothing to do with evolving.


not buying it...

so a germ has the same kind of consciousness as we do?

Yes.

Is intellect not a part of consciousness?

Not at all. And, that is precisely the reason what makes us believe that consciousness evolves with time.

There are two different entities there, whose role is also different.

First one is consciousness. It is merely a feeling/witnessing entity. It does not do anything else like thinking or learning. It just witnesses what the mind is doing, feels the happenings in the terms of pain and pleasure, and records/stores memories. Being merely a feeling entity, it does not need to evolve, and it cannot either because of many other reasons.

The second entity is mind. Its job is thinking but it can only think/learn/analyze, but it cannot feel what is happening because of its actions. For that, it is dependent on consciousness, takes feed backs from it and then acts in such a way that suits consciousness.

That is the Dualistic theory. According to Monolistic theory, both of consciousness and mind are one, where consciousness is the real entity and mind is its quality. I am not competent enough to decide which theory is right, but in either case, consciousness never changes or evolves.

And remember, this dualistic theory is different from the dualism of mind and matter.


If it doesn't grow and evolve, what's the point? Can we not learn anything and change spiritually – ergo consciously?

Again, it is only mind that learns spiritually or in any other way. Consciousness does not need to learn anything. Being eternal and unchangeable, and also because of having the capacity to witness and record all, it is already spiritually enlightened. That seems a bit strange, but that is true. But, the problem is that, not being able to think/analyze, it can never know on its own that it is already enlightened. It needs the help of the mind for that realization. Mind is two way sword. It can help consciousness to realize its enlightenment, but can also keep consciousness away from that ultimate goal by distracting it other things.

And, that is precisely why mind is called Yetzer Hara or the necessary evil in every religion. And, that is precisely the answer why God created and allowed Satan to tempt Adam and Eve to eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge. That tree of knowledge is a metaphor for mind.

Being the own creation of the God, did Adam and Eve need to achieve anything else? Or, what else better can they could be ever, instead of being the direct creation of the God and living in the paradise? They were in the best/perfect position, but the only problem was that they were not aware of the fact that was perfection. Satan was necessary in order to make them realize that perfection. One can be good or could be living in the good since eternity but would never be able to realize good unless he comes across the bad. People do not understand it but it is bad that enables good to become good. Good alone is meaningless
.

Would a robotic consciousness be equal to ours?

Consciousness is precisely the difference between machines and living organisms. As machines cannot have consciousness, but predefined mind only, thus they can never be live in true sense.

If we knew how the brain produces consciousness, and could mimic that artificially, would you not think there are different kinds and different amounts of consciousness ~ depending upon the schemata?

Brain or mind does not manifest consciousness. It is like putting horses behind the cart. Secondly, there cannot be different kind of consciousnesses for different organisms. All have to be the same, be it an insect or a human.

In Hinduism if I remember correctly, the soul has been through all the changes in the animal kingdom from one incarnation to the other ~ a progression.

That is true, but it is not the progression/digression of the consciousness, but merely of the mind.

awareness; are all things equally aware?

No. Awareness towards this materialistic world depends on the mind, not consciousness. Thus, different organisms use to have different level of awareness, according to their mental capacities.

perception; is trained and honed, and is directly linked to intellectual capacity, no? it is certainly different in different creatures, and varies in sophistication and diversity.

Already covered.


with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby zinnat » Sat May 14, 2016 6:50 am

And, this is precisely the answer what other thread asked -

Why do bad things happen when God exists?

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby Amorphos » Sat May 14, 2016 9:20 pm

zinnat

So consciousness doesn't learn, ergo there is no requirement for dharma and karma?

I don't get how awareness isn't linked to perception and in turn both to consciousness. A learned creature is more aware and will survive longer than another unlearned one, and the awareness is enhanced by the informed perception.

An experience contains knowledge of the thing being experienced, otherwise it cannot know what that something is, ergo cannot experience ~ be conscious of it!

Is intellect not a part of consciousness?


Not at all. And, that is precisely the reason what makes us believe that consciousness evolves with time.


How can we be conscious and aware of intellect and knowledge without them being represented >exactly< and on a 1 – 1 basis?

You really think mankind wont be developing robots with different levels of consciousness? ..because when we understand how it works in the brain we will be able to build it – and varying amounts of it! It will be no different to TV's and computers, there will be upgrades [and possibly for humans too].


Arminius


the Neanderthals were not our direct ancestors but another subspecies


I know all that stuff, I was just using it to take a road back in evolution, but you are right and I shouldn't have gone on that tangent.

There may be a primordial consciousness, but that does not necessarily mean that it grows and develops.


I refer you to the above [in blue].

James

A germ might evolve to have more consciousness. Consciousness itself doesn't evolve any more than a square evolves.


I refer you to the above [in blue].

The point of life is NOT to "grow and evolve".


Evolution is exactly that though. All life grows and develops, its just that sometimes a model works at a given level [e.g. cockroaches], and so the world is made up of 'slots' in which given species will fill. However, running along side that you have the overall path whereby humans have surpassed all others and could destroy any others if they wished to.

_
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby zinnat » Sun May 15, 2016 8:08 am

So consciousness doesn't learn, ergo there is no requirement for dharma and karma


That requirement is still very much there.

Because of having a default character of feeling and only feeling, the consciousness cannot help but to feel all the time. It cannot avoid any feeling, irrespective of whether it brings pleasure or pain. It is innocent, not intelligent, something like a small clild who can feel the pain and pleasure but neither can deduce why he is feeling so nor can do anything about to change it.

It is the mind which is supposed to bring the consciousness into pleasurable circumstances. But, mind has to learn how to do that. That is precisely the reason why all this labyrinth is created.

I don't get how awareness isn't linked to perception and in turn both to consciousness. A learned creature is more aware and will survive longer than another unlearned one, and the awareness is enhanced by the informed perception


I above explained the reasons why consciousness has nothing to do with the perception. I think that the one of the main reason why this misunderstanding is because of the language.

The apparent similarity between the terms of conscious and consciousness gives the impression that both are related, but they are not, at least in the way as it is perceived generally. Many other mythologies and languages use entirely different terms for these phenomena.

In Hinduism, Chetana/Shruti is used for consciousness while Buddhi for mind, and Ruh and Nafs is Sufism/Islam respectively.

To understand the issue better, we can use an analogy of a man and a set of 3d glasses. If the object/picture is in 3d, a spectator cannot see it without 3d glasses, even though he has the capability of seeing. The same is with the mind and consciousness. Consciousness is open to the terms of pleasure and pain only. It cannot do anything beyond that, thus it needs some another entity to translate all observations into its only known terms, and that is mind.

Consciousness is not interested in awareness or perception, or, being an unchangeable entity, it can neither learn or evolve, in the first place. These things are beyond its capabilities. Yes, its associate mind can certainly learn and evolve with time and experience. And, as the result, consciousness also becomes able to feel the new things, though again only in the terms of pleasure and pain only.

An experience contains knowledge of the thing being experienced, otherwise it cannot know what that something is, ergo cannot experience ~ be conscious of it!


As I explained above, consciousness can experience/understand only in the terms of feelings, not deduction. It needs someone to translate everything in its understandable terms. Only then, and only in that way, it can be conscious of anything.

How can we be conscious and aware of intellect and knowledge without them being represented >exactly< and on a 1 – 1 basis


Because, beside consciousness, we also have one such an entity in the form of the mind, which can also learn, evolve and analyze things.

You really think mankind wont be developing robots with different levels of consciousness? ..because when we understand how it works in the brain we will be able to build it – and varying amounts of it! It will be no different to TV's and computers, there will be upgrades [and possibly for humans too].


I do not merely think that but rather know for sure for some valid and reliable reasons that it is not going to happen ever. Consciousness is not what science is assuming it to be. Forget about it, the science cannot even create mind similar to organisms, which can learn and evolve completely on its own. Both of mind and consciousnes are not the manifeststions of the organic brain, as it is perceived generally.

Science/humans can only create a pseudo mind, which can recognise and implement input information only, nothing else. But, that is neither mind nor consciousness. Merely complexity cannot create either of these. If that was not true, being able to have the access to all the knowledge of the mankind at a single place, the servers of Google and Wikipedia would have become conscious on their own long ago.

The claim of creating mind/consciousness is not less bizarre/unachievable than creating an universe. And, given the present pace of the science, it is not long before humans would realize this reality too. In the globalised world of today, it is merely a matter of one clear incident/evidence anywhere, which is bound to happen.

With love,
Sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby James S Saint » Sun May 15, 2016 12:23 pm

zinnat wrote:I do not merely think that but rather know for sure for some valid and reliable reasons that it is not going to happen ever. Consciousness is not what science is assuming it to be.

I have to disagree with you on that one.
And I am pretty certain that you are using the word "consciousness" for something different than what English speaking people use the word to represent. You seem to be speaking of the culmination of subconscious processes as a single, non-material entity.

zinnat wrote:Forget about it, the science cannot even create mind similar to organisms, which can learn and evolve completely on its own.

And that is certainly not true. It is about like saying that Man will never create a machine that can move on its own and perhaps even fly, as was once believed .. most especially by middle eastern and eastern peoples.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25031
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby Amorphos » Sun May 15, 2016 11:05 pm

Zinnat

I above explained the reasons why consciousness has nothing to do with the perception. I think that the one of the main reason why this misunderstanding is because of the language.


It didn't say >why<, and you merely expressed the following sentiment;

Because of having a default character of feeling and only feeling,


Whereas instead of that I think all of the senses are observational... Ever heard the expression 'pain is subjective'? It literally is, and that must mean that the subjective observer can become detached from even the harshest of feelings, that of pain. Simple life-forms don't have emotions, they simply perceive the world with what organic instruments they have. Do you think bacteria can feel? With no nervous system? So no, feeling is a property of more complex systems and is not inherent in all life-forms.

Secondly; even if there is some manner of rudimentary 'feeling' [which has no physical analytic counterpart?] through the basic electromagnetism all life has, that doesn't tell us why an informed perception + observation doesn't also have an effect. There can be both 'feeling' – whatever we actually mean by that, which is affecting, and perceiving as well as that.

With the 'only feeling' scenario, we would be suggesting that information is not affecting the consciousness, the same as sensation is. I don't see how the experiencer can know something, without that something making an imprint upon its fabric – so to speak, in a similar way to feeling/sensation does.

In Hinduism, Chetana/Shruti is used for consciousness while Buddhi for mind, and Ruh and Nafs is Sufism/Islam respectively.


Archaic terms. What's wrong with just saying what is meant i.e. without vacuous and superfluous terms? e.g. 'mind'; should include everything concerned with the collection of things composing it, consciousness and subconsciousness, perception, sensation, info etc. if we mean something else we should state what that is, otherwise the terms have no value. In other words, unless any mysticism is justified by saying what it is in the world, we have to ask; 'what is it'?

To understand the issue better, we can use an analogy of a man and a set of 3d glasses. If the object/picture is in 3d, a spectator cannot see it without 3d glasses, even though he has the capability of seeing. The same is with the mind and consciousness. Consciousness is open to the terms of pleasure and pain only. It cannot do anything beyond that, thus it needs some another entity to translate all observations into its only known terms, and that is mind.


That doesn't make any sense, the conscious experience/r contains all experienced thought. There is no other mind of any sort, but instead the subconscious is doing all the processing i.e. and not another 'mind'. From now on when you say 'mind' I will consider that to be referring to the subconsciousness and the brain as an instrument.

Science/humans can only create a pseudo mind, which can recognise and implement input information only, nothing else. But, that is neither mind nor consciousness. Merely complexity cannot create either of these. If that was not true, being able to have the access to all the knowledge of the mankind at a single place, the servers of Google and Wikipedia would have become conscious on their own long ago.


The servers of Google and Wikipedia don't have the faculties and function required to produce consciousness. If you gave them those functions then they would naturally become conscious, just the same as if you give radios visuals, then you get TVs. I take your point that complexity alone doesn't create consciousness, but I feel sure that the right kind of complexity would! Then once man has instruments which produces consciousness, goes what, they will produce superior versions as the technology improves.
_
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby zinnat » Wed May 18, 2016 4:54 am

James S Saint wrote:
zinnat wrote:I do not merely think that but rather know for sure for some valid and reliable reasons that it is not going to happen ever. Consciousness is not what science is assuming it to be.

I have to disagree with you on that one.

Yes, and we both know that too.

And I am pretty certain that you are using the word "consciousness" for something different than what English speaking people use the word to represent. You seem to be speaking of the culmination of subconscious processes as a single, non-material entity.

To some extent, yes. And, that is precisely the problem.

James,

If you look around for the definition of consciousness, you will find as many definitions as many intellectuals are there. People are confused about for what they think the consciousness it. Given that, how can you expect them to define it? And, philosophy cannot provide any help without enough understandable definition.

One has to know exactly about anything before defining it. The only other alternative is, first lay down a clear cut definition, then look whether anything fits into it or not. One is not supposed to compromise in either case.

The second confusion about the consciousness is that it, and mind also, are considered as a manifested phenomenon by organic brain, which they are not.

Yes, you may say that i am talking about something different than what the consciousness is generally perceived, but i cannot help it for the simple reason because there is no alternative term available in the English to address that entity either. Soul is not consciousness, but the amalgamation of consciousness and mind.

In the west, or in the English language, consciousness is by and large considered as the quality of awareness. detection, or recognition. And, that is precisely what paves the way for later confusion too. Then, people start to think that things like face deducting cameras are also have consciousness.


zinnat wrote:Forget about it, the science cannot even create mind similar to organisms, which can learn and evolve completely on its own.

And that is certainly not true. It is about like saying that Man will never create a machine that can move on its own and perhaps even fly, as was once believed .. most especially by middle eastern and eastern peoples.

James, if somethings have become possible, it does not mean that everything will eventually become possible too.

By the way, contrary to what is generally perceived in the west, both of middle eastern and eastern people believed since long that humans are able to fly with some help. And, that was centuries before the west came up with the idea of flying.

Image

Above the west lintel of the sanctuary is a scene from the epic of Ramayana. The temple shown here is a miniature of Phnom Rung (Thailand)itself, being drawn through the air and surrounded by Hanuman's monkey army and the heads of celestials. A western scholar Freeman identifies this as Ravana's Pushpaka flying chariot (Aircraft), in which Sita was taken to view the battlefield. Sita was first kidnapped and taken to Lanka by Ravana in this, and after killing Ravana and winning the war, Lord Rama returned to his native place by this very Puspak Viman too.

If you look at the scriptures of Hinduism, you will find mentioning of some sort of flying machines there manytimes.

In the same way, Islam perceives archangel Jibrael (Gabriel in Christianity), as a form of very enormous spacecraft or having some kind of that thing in his pocession, which can fly/move from one place to another within a very short span of time. That is precisely why he was chosen every time among all angels whenever something has to be delivered/conveyed to the earth, even though both of angel Azraeil and angel Michaeil are considered above him in the hierarchy .



with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby zinnat » Wed May 18, 2016 6:00 am

Amorphos wrote:Zinnat

I above explained the reasons why consciousness has nothing to do with the perception. I think that the one of the main reason why this misunderstanding is because of the language.


It didn't say >why<, and you merely expressed the following sentiment;

No, Amorphos, i gave the reasoning of my definitions and ontology based on those. I cannot provide any evidence, if that is what you asking for.

Because of having a default character of feeling and only feeling,


Whereas instead of that I think all of the senses are observational... Ever heard the expression 'pain is subjective'? It literally is, and that must mean that the subjective observer can become detached from even the harshest of feelings, that of pain. Simple life-forms don't have emotions, they simply perceive the world with what organic instruments they have. Do you think bacteria can feel? With no nervous system? So no, feeling is a property of more complex systems and is not inherent in all life-forms.

How you concluded that a lower organisms like bacteria cannot feel? Feeling does not entail emotions. Emotions are thought analyzations. They themselves are not feelings but they cause feelings.

The quality of feeling depends how much thoughts and analysis a mind can provide to its corresponding consciousness. And, in the same way, mind is dependent on the organic brain to provide information. Going down the line further, brain is dependent on the sense organs to provide that intel. And, if any downside link of the chain is not efficient, emotions would not manifest. Thus, it use to be different in the case of different organisms, though they have the same mind and the consciousness. They all feel, but not of the same intensity. Feeling has no relation to nervous system.


Secondly; even if there is some manner of rudimentary 'feeling' [which has no physical analytic counterpart?] through the basic electromagnetism all life has, that doesn't tell us why an informed perception + observation doesn't also have an effect. There can be both 'feeling' – whatever we actually mean by that, which is affecting, and perceiving as well as that.

Again, how you concluded that feeling does not effect always? It does. As it depends on many other things also, thus may be very minuscule in some cases, but any sensation is bound to have effect.

You may have a very sophisticated computer, which may be extraordinary both in the terms of hardware and software, but it would not be able to analyze anything unless you give it something to analyze from your end. The same is with organisms. Consciousness is hardware while mind is software, which happens to be the same in all cases, but it is quantity and quality of the information fed from outside to analyze, that makes all the difference.
.

With the 'only feeling' scenario, we would be suggesting that information is not affecting the consciousness, the same as sensation is. I don't see how the experiencer can know something, without that something making an imprint upon its fabric – so to speak, in a similar way to feeling/sensation does.

Information certainly affects the consciousness, and that is only why it is able to feel. But, this feeling does not change the consciousness in any sense. Feeling is merely the quality of the consciousness, not quantity. Its existence is unchangeable.

In Hinduism, Chetana/Shruti is used for consciousness while Buddhi for mind, and Ruh and Nafs is Sufism/Islam respectively.


Archaic terms. What's wrong with just saying what is meant i.e. without vacuous and superfluous terms? e.g. 'mind'; should include everything concerned with the collection of things composing it, consciousness and subconsciousness, perception, sensation, info etc. if we mean something else we should state what that is, otherwise the terms have no value. In other words, unless any mysticism is justified by saying what it is in the world, we have to ask; 'what is it'?

That is precisely what i am indicating too. In general sense, mind is supposed to include all these things, but it does not.

To understand the issue better, we can use an analogy of a man and a set of 3d glasses. If the object/picture is in 3d, a spectator cannot see it without 3d glasses, even though he has the capability of seeing. The same is with the mind and consciousness. Consciousness is open to the terms of pleasure and pain only. It cannot do anything beyond that, thus it needs some another entity to translate all observations into its only known terms, and that is mind.


That doesn't make any sense,

Why it does not make any sense? If any theory is of such nature that it cannot verified empirically either positively and negatively, the best way to judge that is to put into test and see whether it answers all questions or not.

the conscious experience/r contains all experienced thought. There is no other mind of any sort, but instead the subconscious is doing all the processing i.e. and not another 'mind'. From now on when you say 'mind' I will consider that to be referring to the subconsciousness and the brain as an instrument.

What i mean to say is that, the brain is merely an instrument just like other physical organs, conscious mind thinks a little on its own but rather acts a information provider for the subconscious mind, which ultimately does most of the analysis. This does not mean that the conscious mind cannot think on its own, it certainly can, but it does not do generally. That is the default mechanism. though can be changed too.

Science/humans can only create a pseudo mind, which can recognise and implement input information only, nothing else. But, that is neither mind nor consciousness. Merely complexity cannot create either of these. If that was not true, being able to have the access to all the knowledge of the mankind at a single place, the servers of Google and Wikipedia would have become conscious on their own long ago.


The servers of Google and Wikipedia don't have the faculties and function required to produce consciousness. If you gave them those functions then they would naturally become conscious, just the same as if you give radios visuals, then you get TVs.

That is not what i meant to say.

I was saying that given that those serves have all that information that the whole of the mankind has earned so far, yet they never come out anything on their own. They give back precisely only what is given to them, just like a mirror, which replicates the image as it is.

Instead of creating small softwares of the robots, why AI scientists do not connect robots to those serves and see what a robot does with that? Do you think that Google has not tried that sort of things already?


I take your point that complexity alone doesn't create consciousness, but I feel sure that the right kind of complexity would! Then once man has instruments which produces consciousness, goes what, they will produce superior versions as the technology improves.
_
I completely disagree with that assumption/hope.

Besides right kind of complexity, you need a consciousness and mind to make anything live.
.


with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby James S Saint » Wed May 18, 2016 7:27 am

zinnat wrote:If you look around for the definition of consciousness, you will find as many definitions as many intellectuals are there. People are confused about for what they think the consciousness it. Given that, how can you expect them to define it? And, philosophy cannot provide any help without enough understandable definition.

One has to know exactly about anything before defining it. The only other alternative is, first lay down a clear cut definition, then look whether anything fits into it or not. One is not supposed to compromise in either case.

The second confusion about the consciousness is that it, and mind also, are considered as a manifested phenomenon by organic brain, which they are not.

Yes, you may say that i am talking about something different than what the consciousness is generally perceived, but i cannot help it for the simple reason because there is no alternative term available in the English to address that entity either. Soul is not consciousness, but the amalgamation of consciousness and mind.

In the west, or in the English language, consciousness is by and large considered as the quality of awareness. detection, or recognition. And, that is precisely what paves the way for later confusion too. Then, people start to think that things like face deducting cameras are also have consciousness.[/color]

I think that you are confused about the way language works. It is not that there is consciousness and people are trying to properly define it. That is backwards from how language works. Things are not defined. Words and concepts are defined.

People note a trait or property and give it a name. They might not know how or why it works, but they already know WHAT it is because it is whatever they gave the name to. Most of the time, they do not clearly explain what it was that they gave the name to (aka "define it") and thus many people back track to try to figure out what was intended when the name was first applied. So people might argue about definitions. But they are arguing about the definition of the WORD or the CONCEPT. They are NOT arguing about a definition of a THING.

The word "conscious" is formed from the English prefix "con-", meaning "with", and a diminutive of the root "science", meaning "knowing" or "awareness". "To be conscious" means "to be with-knowing/awareness". So when anyone says "consciousness", they are referring to the ability to be aware, ability to recognize, or to know of something. They are NOT talking about a THING that might in itself be responsible for such awareness. It is like referring to a color rather than what is displaying that color. What is causing consciousness is entirely another issue from what consciousness is. You are speaking of whatever it is that causes consciousness, not the ability that consciousness is.

In Hindi, I am sure there is a word for whatever causes a person to be able to be aware of things, causing his consciousness. In the modern West, we accept whatever that is to be what we call "the nervous system", "brain", or even "mind". The West might not have that right. Perhaps there is something different causing a person's consciousness or awareness. But don't conflate the cause of the ability or property of awareness, whatever you believe that to be, with the awareness itself. Consciousness MEANS "the ability to remotely recognize" or "the ability to be aware". It is an ability or property, not a thing or substance (such as brain or akasha).

zinnat wrote:James, if somethings have become possible, it does not mean that everything will eventually become possible too.

And just because something hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean that it can't happen, either. Such statements are irrelevant.

zinnat wrote:If you look at the scriptures of Hinduism, you will find mentioning of some sort of flying machines there manytimes.

In the same way, Islam perceives archangel Jibrael (Gabriel in Christianity), as a form of very enormous spacecraft or having some kind of that thing in his pocession, which can fly/move from one place to another within a very short span of time. That is precisely why he was chosen every time among all angels whenever something has to be delivered/conveyed to the earth, even though both of angel Azraeil and angel Michaeil are considered above him in the hierarchy . [/color]

Try not to conflate "machines" with "mechanisms". The Abramic religions have social/spiritual mechanisms to cause things to happen. Those mechanisms have names. Only the seriously ignorant think of those mechanisms as "machines". Gabriel is the social mechanism for broadcasting (aka "trumpeting") the will of God (by definition). That mechanism spans the globe (aka "flies wherever around the world"). Gabriel is a communication network mechanism/strategy/"angel".
Last edited by James S Saint on Wed May 18, 2016 8:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25031
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby James S Saint » Wed May 18, 2016 7:41 am

People are seldom conscious of the consciousness of machines (or other people for that matter). If a machine had consciousness (and I can assure you that many do), most people, by far, would not be aware of it even if engaged with the machine. People are not terribly good at recognizing consciousness when they encounter it.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25031
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby zinnat » Wed May 18, 2016 2:19 pm

James S Saint wrote:I think that you are confused about the way language works.


I am not confused about how a language works but indicating that any any entity and its quality are two different things. If there is an effect, there must be something that would have caused it, and that is where i am disagreeing.

James S Saint wrote: It is not that there is consciousness and people are trying to properly define it. That is backwards from how language works. Things are not defined. Words and concepts are defined.


I do not get it, James. Explain it further.

Things and concepts are defined, not words. A word is a reference point/marker for anything. It is a construct of human mind only, not exist it reality. On the other hand, things and concepts use to have their separate existence besides names and definitions.

James S Saint wrote:People note a trait or property and give it a name.


Agreed, but people do the same with things too. And, that is how we come up with words.

James S Saint wrote:They might not know how or why it works, but they already know WHAT it is because it is whatever they gave the name to.


Agreed. Knowing the working or other details are not necessary in giving names. But, in such cases, one must be able to recognize and discern that from others.

Sweetness is sweetness only because it can be recognized clearly by discerning from bitterness or savoriness.

James S Saint wrote:Most of the time, they do not clearly explain what it was that they gave the name to (aka "define it") and thus many people back track to try to figure out what was intended when the name was first applied. So people might argue about definitions


Agreed, perhaps that is what i am doing.

James S Saint wrote: But they are arguing about the definition of the WORD or the CONCEPT. They are NOT arguing about a definition of a THING.


I understand your point. Yes, i may be a bit out of line here but as i mentioned previously, west/English does not have any proper name for that thing towards what i am indicating. That is why i am compelled to discern the quality (feeling) from the entity (consciousness), in order to name both differently.

James S Saint wrote:The word "conscious" is formed from the English prefix "con-", meaning "with", and a diminutive of the root "science", meaning "knowing" or "awareness". "To be conscious" means "to be with-knowing/awareness". So when anyone says "consciousness", they are referring to the ability to be aware, ability to recognize, or to know of something. They are NOT talking about a THING that might in itself be responsible for such awareness. It is like referring to a color rather than what is displaying that color.


Agreed. I understand what they mean by consciousness.

James S Saint wrote:What is causing consciousness is entirely another issue from what consciousness is. You are speaking of whatever it is that causes consciousness, not the ability that consciousness is.


But, i am taking up the issue what causes consciousness, or enables anything to become conscious.

zinnat wrote:In the west, or in the English language, consciousness is by and large considered as the quality of awareness. detection, or recognition. And, that is precisely what paves the way for later confusion too. Then, people start to think that things like face deducting cameras are also have consciousness.


James, what i am trying to plead here is that let us discern mere the ability to detect or recognize from becoming conscious.

James S Saint wrote:In Hindi, I am sure there is a word for whatever causes a person to be able to be aware of things, causing his consciousness. In the modern West, we accept whatever that is to be what we call "the nervous system", "brain", or even "mind". The West might not have that right. Perhaps there is something different causing a person's consciousness or awareness. But don't conflate the cause of the ability or property of awareness, whatever you believe that to be, with the awareness itself. Consciousness MEANS "the ability to remotely recognize" or "the ability to be aware". It is an ability or property, not a thing or substance (such as brain or akasha).


I take your point.

James S Saint wrote:And just because something hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean that it can't happen, either. Such statements are irrelevant.


Agreed. It cannot be settled unless any concluding evidence comes from either side.

James S Saint wrote:Try not to conflate "machines" with "mechanisms". The Abramic religions have social/spiritual mechanisms to cause things to happen. Those mechanisms have names. Only the seriously ignorant think of those mechanisms as "machines". Gabriel is the social mechanism for broadcasting (aka "trumpeting") the will of God (by definition). That mechanism spans the globe (aka "flies wherever around the world"). Gabriel is a communication network mechanism/strategy/"angel".


No, James. I understand the difference between the two very clearly. I am not talking about mechanisms only but machines also. In Hinduism, Puspak Viman was a pure machine, not any supernatural mechanism. Though, it is not clear in Islam how Gabriel was travelling up and down.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby James S Saint » Wed May 18, 2016 6:12 pm

zinnat wrote:I understand your point. Yes, i may be a bit out of line here but as i mentioned previously, west/English does not have any proper name for that thing towards what i am indicating. That is why i am compelled to discern the quality (feeling) from the entity (consciousness), in order to name both differently.

Although you have agreed many times, I suspect that you are still not getting my point. Consciousness is not an "entity". It is a property that an entity might have. To "dicern the quality from the entity" is like discerning the color red from the object red. There is no "object red". There are objects that have the property of redNESS. And there are objects/entities that have the property of consciousNESS. That suffix "-ness" in English almost always refers to a property, not an entity.

zinnat wrote:But, i am taking up the issue what causes consciousness, or enables anything to become conscious.

I suspected that from the way you were speaking of consciousness, as if it was an entity. You probably should use the Hindu word for whatever it is that causes the property of consciousness because in the West, that is assumed to be the nervous system, thus the West doesn't have a word for what you are talking about. "Consciousness" is NOT that word, but rather is the resultant property of whatever it is that that you are talking about.

zinnat wrote:James, what i am trying to plead here is that let us discern mere the ability to detect or recognize from becoming conscious.

Again, that is like saying, "Let us discern mere red from the color red" or "Let us discern the difference between mere two and the quantity two." It is a nonsense proposal.

zinnat wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Try not to conflate "machines" with "mechanisms". The Abramic religions have social/spiritual mechanisms to cause things to happen. Those mechanisms have names. Only the seriously ignorant think of those mechanisms as "machines". Gabriel is the social mechanism for broadcasting (aka "trumpeting") the will of God (by definition). That mechanism spans the globe (aka "flies wherever around the world"). Gabriel is a communication network mechanism/strategy/"angel".


No, James. I understand the difference between the two very clearly. I am not talking about mechanisms only but machines also. In Hinduism, Puspak Viman was a pure machine, not any supernatural mechanism. Though, it is not clear in Islam how Gabriel was travelling up and down.

I don't know the word/name "Puspak Viman", but in the case of "Gabriel" the word was coined before the category and very idea of machines was known to Man. The closest thing to a machine was merely tools, carts, or physical puzzles, such as locking mechanisms. Automated mechanical devices such as clocks did not have a category name because there simply wasn't enough of their variety to warrant a general category name.

And being a little familiar with the Eastern mentality, I can pretty much bet that a guru/wise man type person mentioned their name for Gabriel and it was taken to mean something much more physically concrete because that is how gurus talk and that is how the Abramic religions were founded ("Abraham was giving up on his son when he was inspired by an idea - Abraham, Isaac, and the angel). In another thread, an author of a book was explaining the universe by proclaiming that there are "forces" of order and chaos competing with each other and thus causing the universe to be what it is. That is a very ancient Eastern type of mindset - presuming the property of force (or or intellect) to a mere state of being or situation. To Westerners, that is metaphor and/or poetry (eg. "Fate whispers to the wolf"). But very many in the East and Middle East of the population presume the words to be literal, thus situations such as fate, in the minds of the population, are thought to be forces causing destiny.

That is why there are literalists or "fundamentalists" around the world. They originally conflated properties, situations, and thoughts with living beings in their speech ("anthropomorphizing") or forces (metaphor) and thus caused the masses to believe that they were talking about actual living beings or forces. Again, it is merely a language issue although one that many influential people wish to use to their advantage. Islamics intentionally spread the rumor that their ancient texts are referring to modern ideas, such as UFOs (or machines). Whether intentional or not, it is a deception upon the populous. The world is filled with such deceivers because it provides for obfuscation, manipulation, and justfication - tools for social engineering and management (aka "religion").
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25031
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], WendyDarling, Yahoo [Bot]