Things that don't exist according to science

BaldFriede wrote: Logan wrote: God, although it also doesn't not exist according to science, but lacks evidence. I disagree about that. It is not about evidence, it is about interpretation. For some the order of the universe is just a coincidence, others see in it the work of a creative mind. I disagree about either interpretation. You may say "How is that possible?Tertium non datur ("there is no third thing"), but that's because my definition of "God" is not the same as the standard definition. First of all: Everything in the world is a process, not just a thing. Example: An orange will change in the course of time; it will rot. Now for me there seems to be a tendency in the universe that the more complex a process is the more consciousness it does have. And the most complex process is the universe itself. Therefore I believe it also has a consciousness, and this consciousness I call "God". This is of course a consciousness that is way suoerior to human consciousness. I believe that uch a consciousness might well be aware of all its subprocesses (contrary to human consciousness; we humans are for example not aware of what happens to a single  cell of ours). Mark that this process has the three major qualities ascribed to God: Omnipresence, because this process is everywhere, omnipotence, because everything possible happens in this process, and omniscience because of its total awareness. It is a kind of pantheistic belief with a slight difference: My God is an evolving God. Does this God of mine have a morality like the Christian God? I don't think so. I would like to point to an interesting text by logician Raymond Smullyan named ""Is God a Taoist?". http://www.newbanner.com/SecHumSCM/IsGodTaoist.html Smullyan basically shares my concept of God, but his God has a kind of morality: He wants less suffering. You can of course reject my concept of God and say "This is not what God is all about". It certainly is not the God of Judaism, Christianity or Islam.

I recently had a big debate at another forum where I was trying to defend my soft atheist stance to a hard atheist. Science looks for evidence, but of course interpretation is important (often both, as in one's interpretation of the evidence). I argued there that god becomes more probable depending upon the interpretation and concept of god. The vaguer the definition, the less improbable. I could say that a rock is a god (and I don't mean a god of rock), and define god into existence that way, but it's not very useful. I find the impersonal god of Spinoza more likely than the personal God. Some people claim that the cosmos is god, so if you believe in the cosmos you must believe in god, or that nature is god so no supernatural requirement, or that god exists in another dimension and multiverse hypothesis and the notion that the universe popped into existence out of nothing (relates to string theory) also lends credence to god.

The ideas you have about consciousness are not very scientific, but feel free to believe what thou whilst. Your ideas do rather more fit some conceptions I have had of a potential godlike entity in the past.

Was going to write more, but being called away. May edit in more later.

Edited by Logan - August 29 2017 at 13:11

Also, the luminiferous aether.

Incidentally, Condor, I would like it if you would participate more in the topics you start. You've made many interesting topics, and I am interested to hear more of your thoughts.

BaldFriede wrote: Logan wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Logan, no-one has any scientific idea about consciousness. It is an absolute mystery why humans have developed it. So my hypothesis is as good as any other. It's not just for philosophers, it is a fascinating study in neuroscience, and I am interested in how it relates to artificial intelligence. It's fine that you have that hypothesis, I do question the premises, just not what I would call scientific. Interesting post, never-the-less. There is absolutely nothing non-scientific about the basic hypothesis,  that as soon as a pörocess becomess sufficiently complex (and of course self-reflective) it develops a consciousness. I admit that my final conclusion is keen, but nevertheless there is nothing unscientific about it.

It's nonscience that I'm aware of, and as you claim, though I disagree, "no-one has any scientific idea about consciousness." You're in the realm of metaphysics rather than physics.

(((scientists))) [stern smile]

Sorry for being a bit off-topic too, but there's NO consensus amongst scientists about man-made global warming.....

I don't discard that Man has been behaving as sort of a catalyst for that matter. Furthermore, today there is a considerable amount of scientists reckoning that the global warming is part of a natural cycle. The article below confirms that (albeit being from 2009, it's pretty accurate):

In the year 2009, a team of MIT scientists recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels - the first increase in ten years. What baffled the team is that this data contradicts theories stating humans are the primary source of increase in greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. Since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, however, it is probable that this may be part of a natural cycle - and not the direct result of man's contributions.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/06/is-global-warming-part-of-earths-natural-cycle-mit-team-says-yes.html

Edited by Tillerman88 - August 29 2017 at 18:06

Yes, there is consensus on anthropogenic climate change. No, I will not debate it. It is real, deal with it.

BaldFriede wrote: Logan wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Logan wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Logan, no-one has any scientific idea about consciousness. It is an absolute mystery why humans have developed it. So my hypothesis is as good as any other. It's not just for philosophers, it is a fascinating study in neuroscience, and I am interested in how it relates to artificial intelligence. It's fine that you have that hypothesis, I do question the premises, just not what I would call scientific. Interesting post, never-the-less. There is absolutely nothing non-scientific about the basic hypothesis,  that as soon as a pörocess becomess sufficiently complex (and of course self-reflective) it develops a consciousness. I admit that my final conclusion is keen, but nevertheless there is nothing unscientific about it. It's nonscience that I'm aware of, and as you claim, though I disagree, "no-one has any scientific idea about consciousness." You're in the realm of metaphysics rather than physics. Logan, Jean and I both follow the studying of consciousness closely, albeit for different reasons; Jean for philosophical reasons, I for scientific ones. So we are well-informed about this topic, and it is exactly as I said: No-one has any idea. To quote from a 2009 article: "Consciousness arises as an emergent property of the human mind. Yet basic questions about the precise timing, location and dynamics of the neural event(s) allowing conscious access to information are not clearly and unequivocally determined". That's scientific bla-bla for "we have no idea". I studied math and physics for several semesters before I decided to switch to computer programming, and trust me, I know what physics is all about. There is nothing unphysical about my hypothesis. But I am very well aware of the fact that physicists start to feel uncomfortable as soon as consciousness enters their realm.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm being pedantic, but people have ideas, they just don't know. A great number of consciousness studies abound in the New Age, religious, self-help gurus, and philosophical realm, but serious consciousness studies in neuroscience, psychology and biology exist, and it has become an interesting topic when it comes to AI as I said. Evolutionary biologists posit ideas on how consciousness developed. There is no consensus, but there are ideas from scientists, as there are from philosophers, but I guess you mean that no one knows (although I suspect some think they might know or at least have a pretty reasonable idea of it).

Anyway, if consciousness, at least the reasons why it developed, is an unknown, I don't see how the "for me there seems to be a tendency in the universe that the more complex a process is the more consciousness it does have. And the most complex process is the universe itself. Therefore I believe it also has a consciousness, and this consciousness I call "God". This is of course a consciousness that is way suoerior to human consciousness. I believe that uch a consciousness might well be aware of all its subprocesses (contrary to human consciousness; we humans are for example not aware of what happens to a single cell of ours)" hypothesis is ultimately not nonscientific.

Those are very questionable assumptions. You assert that you believe that "there seems to be a tendency in the universe that the more complex a process is the more consciousness it does have", and we could debate that alone, but the brain (its functioning etc.) seems to be the most complex process in the universe that we know of, but the whole body is more complex still. And "the most complex process is the universe itself", well that encompasses the brain, life, however that is defined, the laws of physics, simple and complex processes, and everything, although we might say that the multiverse is more complex if we take that hypothesis into account. But sure, we can talk of the universe as universal. So okay. I think of the universe as a system of processes, but then so is the brain. You then say that you believe that the universe has consciousness, which I see no evidence for and is a metaphysical notion. Your argument is begging the question, rather circular, and I think your premises put your conclusion on a very slippery slope. It's the kind of argument I could imagine a Sophist making, although I'm not accusing of sophistry.

You may be right, but as a scientific hypothesis it would fail. I think that consciousness arises due to a great many separate processes, but I don't believe that complexity require consciousness. That said, I have pondered whether the universe could be conscious, bit I didn't have sufficient reason to believe that this is true or probable. As vast and complex as the universe is, I don't think the notion fits Occam's razor type principles (that the fewer assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely the explanation). Now I'm referencing a philosopher there.... But I'm not proposing another hypothesis to counter yours with a simpler explanation because the whole argument seems problematic to me. It ask us to accept too many questionable things to draw the conclusion.

All that said, I gives me an interesting insight into your beliefs, and I am interested in both physics and metaphysics. At some I will read the article you linked to, but don't expect me to comment on it. I know I could have said all of this in a few sentences, I need to hone that skill as I tend to get too bogged down in minutia and have a rambling sort of mind.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

As for climate change, there is pretty much a consensus amongst climatologists that man is having a severe impact on the climate. And most scientists in other disciplines agree to it as well -- certainly reputable ones who have studied it. Well-educated in the science deniers are very much in the minority, and even then I think many have been charlatans. I wonder how many people who believe that it's a hoax also question evolution and the general roundness of the earth, and have almost no formal education in the sciences?
I don't even think it need much education to "get" it.

There should still be debates in it by scientists, the accuracy of stats, the extent etc., but the big question as to whether man is having a profound effect on the climate shouldn't even be a debate any more. I would think that it should be obvious too pretty much all but the most uneducated, unintelligent, and politically or business biased.

Edited by Logan - August 29 2017 at 19:09

You are not following my argument correctly, Logan. First of all I never said complexity required consciousness, it was rather the other way round.

I only have one hypothesis, and that is "The more complex a process is the higher its level of 'consciousness' becomes". Once a process is sufficiently complex, and of course self-reflective as well, it develops something like the human consciousnees.

Of course the human brain is inseparable from the body, and the processes pertaining the brain are most definitely interwoven with the processes in this body. I did not say at all that consciousness springs from the brain alone; in fact I very much doubt it. So that argument you make about the brain and the body is not in contradiction to what I said.

The only hypothesis I have is that the more complex a process is the higher its level of "consciousness". This is in accordance with the currently quite popular "Integrated information theory" proposed by Guilio Tononi and Christian Koch. I will not go into the details of it, but a consequence of this theory is that pretty much anything has a consciousness, in other words we are facing panpsychism. Now you see why I put "consciousness" in quotation marks, because we certainly don't speak of the same level of consciousness when looking at a stone and when looking at a human being.

Everything else I said simply follows from this basic hypothesis. So I am very much in accordance with Occam's razor.

And when I say "no-one has any idea" I simply mean "no-one can sufficiently explain it". There are many ideas around, but none of these ideas is suffcient to form a scientific theory (including mine, or rather ours since Jean and I developed the idea together).


Edited by BaldFriede - August 30 2017 at 02:45

BaldFriede wrote: You are not following my argument correctly, Logan. First of all I never said complexity required consciousness, it was rather the other way round. I only have one hypothesis, and that is "The more complex a process is the higher its level of 'consciousness' becomes". Once a process is sufficiently complex, and of course self-reflective as well, it develops something like the human consciousnees. Of course the human brain is inseparable from the body, and the processes pertaining the brain are most definitely interwoven with the processes in this body. I did not say at all that consciousness springs from the brain alone; in fact I very much doubt it. So that argument you make about the brain and the body is not in contradiction to what I said. The only hypothesis I have is that the more complex a process is the higher its level of "consciousness". This is in accordance with the currently quite popular "Integrated information theory" proposed by Guilio Tononi and Christian Koch. I will not go into the details of it, but a consequence of this theory is that pretty much anything has a conmsciousness, in other words we are facing panpsychism. Now you see why I put "consciousness" in quotation marks, because we certainly don't speak of the same level of consciousness when looking at a stone and when looking at a human being. Everything else I said simply follows from this basic hypothesis. So I am very much in accordance with Occam's razor. And when I say "no-one has any idea" I simply mean "no-one can sufficiently explain it". There are many ideas around, but none of these ideas is suffcient to form a scientific theory (including mine, or rather ours since Jean and I developed the idea together..

I'll give you a high phi instead of a high five.

I got the argument, I just mixed up the order when composing that post. It happens as when I'm typing I'm always thinking ahead.

The brain and body reference was not intended to contradict you.

It follows in argument form, but I still requires assumptions that I thought lacking, here's the word that started it with your negation of my assertion, "evidence", or scientific credibility.

Panpsychism, it's become quite popular again, hasn't it?

I am passingly familiar with "Integrated information theory" as I've heard it discussed in a talk about hard problem of consciousness and the future of artificial intelligence. Being non-functionalist might seem a problem to some. You put your view more into perspective now. I would still very much question the whole notion.

To claim that information is consciousness and information is everywhere, therefore consciousness if everywhere I think depends on how you interpret or define information and consciousness, but I think fundamentally problematic because of the way that information exists relative to consciousness. We use our consciousness to interpret information, and our consciousness requires no "observer", but generally information does require an observer. Now strap that to the universe as a whole.

Edited by Logan - August 29 2017 at 20:48