Originally posted by scottishinnzWhat if for example Jupiters spot that's been churning for millenia
"irritability" is also known as 'response to stimuli'. One thing though, if you don't have [b]all the criteria then you could be including non-alive things in your definition, like chems, for example.[/b]
had developed a system of complexity that met all of the aforementioned
criteria for life except reproduction.
Would it still not be considered 'alive'?
Originally posted by Thequ1ckNope. It would not be considered alive until it fulfils all the criteria. It lacks metabolism too, of course....
What if for example Jupiters spot that's been churning for millenia
had developed a system of complexity that met all of the aforementioned
criteria for life except reproduction.
Would it still not be considered 'alive'?
Originally posted by scottishinnzI don't know what I said to earn such scorn. So far, I have said that I find it more plausible there is a God than not based on something I can observe. I suppose I'm being branded the intolerant one though.
By your reasoning, we shouldn't be able to study the material world either, since we cannot prove that it exists.
As for the "computer intelligence" bit, what is the human brain, if not a hugely complex organic computer?
Edit - Oh, and it's a far greater stretch to believe in God than in the evolution of conciousness. After all, we can't even pro ...[text shortened]... n for nothing - it's only an excuse.
I'll let you get back to thumping your bible now.
I do not see why anything I say precludes studying the material world. I can go to work and read research papers about physics, astronomy, or chemistry. I can go home at night, and while sipping wine with my neighbors I can hypothesize that perhaps nothing is real, including the research papers themselves. The philospher makes a living on such questions, whereas most of us just try to impress our buddies with such thinking.
But don't forget a very famous quote:
"I think, therefore I am".
This captures the ironic fact that one does not have to doubt one's own existence, yet when push comes to shove one cannot 'prove' to anyone that he actually exists.
I said I could not prove to anyone I have conciousness, yet I do not have to doubt it. This is somewhat related to "I think, therefore I am".
I cannot prove even to myself that the material world exists, yet I seem to be observing it. If it really does not exists, then I hardly have to fear looking foolish, because there is no one else around to look foolish too. But I am perfectly content to put such thoughts out of my mind as I observe nature, whether I am a scientist or just an ordinary person.
As far as conciousness goes, it is perfectly reasonable for scientists to study it. That is if they could. I freely admit that many clever things have been done that I never imagined, but I ask respectfully, how can scientists study conciousness.
If I type the sentence "I have conciousness", and then I program my 1983 TRS-80 computer to generate the string "I have conciousness", what objective test is there to determine any difference? I admit there is a lot I don't know, but this is an honest enquiry. Can anyone show reference to a link where scientists can objectively test whether anyone has conciousness? I don't see how they can even begin. However even as I child I could be certain that I had conciousness without any scientific training.
It is sort of like the fact that you cannot trisect a general angle with a straight edge and a compass. Mathemeticians have proved this is not possible by observing the limit of elementary operations. If there is no way to prove our own conciousness *to others* and there is no way to objectively test the conciousness of others, then I can't see much they can do as far as studying conciousness. Perhaps they can observe chemical reactions in people brains as they shown certain pictures, but that is independent of the need to claim one has conciousness.
You claim that a brain is nothing more than a hugely complex organic computer. You are just disagreeing with my premise as if that disproves my premise. Actually, I suppose it is reasonable to believe that the brains of 5,999,999,999 people on earth are just organic computers. But because I can easly verify that I have conciousness, at least this one brain seems to have something that I don't believe emerges from a mere chemical nor electric process. Now I say "I believe" not as if I claimed to have proved it to anyone other than myself. I just find it more reasonable to believe there is a spiritual world than to believe that conciousness emerges by accident from chemicals.
Perhaps I am the only one that has conciousness. That would explain why it is so hard for others to understand what I am saying.
Originally posted by whiteroseYou capture the very essence of why scientists are going to have a difficult time studying conciousness.
To say something is "conscious" is like saying something is "alive", in that it requires further definition. What, specifically, is this "cosciousness" that you speak of? A neuroscientist would argue that you believe yourself and others to be conscious because of chemical reactions in your brain. If this is true, then consciousness is a "chemical process", ...[text shortened]... es quite easily. If not, then you need to further define your idea of "consciousness".
I don't have a further definition. I just am of the belief that others are like me, and thus I can use this word and others will recognize what I am talking about. If others don't have conciousness, then I might as well try to explain it to a computer.
Perhaps a chemical process goes along with my belief, and perhaps a being that had no conciousness could have a similar chemical process. But I am the one claiming there is no objective test (and hence science has no wedge into this realm). Science or not, I can readily verify that I have conciousness, and this conciousness is of a nature that does not seem like it can emerge from indifferent chemical reactions. I'm not saying I couldn't be wrong, I am just saying the existence of a spiritual world of some sort seems more plausible than having to believe my own conciousness emerges from by a pure construction of chemical reactions.
Those of you who don't have conciousness will of course be confused by this statement.
Originally posted by techsouthSorry, but it's you who are making unsubstantiated comments. Why can we study the material world, but not consciousness? What is the fundamental difference? As for you programming your computer to write out "I am conscious", that clearly isn't consciousness. Computer consciousness can be easily tested for - ever heard of the Turing test? As for organic consciousness, well, anything that shows self-awareness is said to be conscious, including all primates, dogs, octopi, etc.
I don't know what I said to earn such scorn. So far, I have said that I find it more plausible there is a God than not based on something I can observe. I suppose I'm being branded the intolerant one though.
I do not see why anything I say precludes studying the material world. I can go to work and read research papers about physics, astronomy, or ch ...[text shortened]... t would explain why it is so hard for others to understand what I am saying.
I think, actually, I can answer my first question about why you believe we can study the material world, but not consciousness. It seems to me that you believe that consciousness is something magical. It has no material basis. This point of view seems to me utterly absurd. Consciousness is what we biologists refer to as an "emergent property", a property that emerges from a number of component properties. For example, yield in wheat is controlled by the mean grain mass, number of grains per ear, number of ears, number of tillers and plant density directly. Indirectly, it is also influenced by genetic factors, management, water availability, N availability, light quality and quantity, pests, etc, etc, etc. The brain has many, many orders of magnitude more interactions than this, and there is no reason to believe that consciousness is anything other than a horrendously complex simulation of the world, by a horrendously complex organic computer. See, it's possible to understand consciousness on a mechanistic basis (indeed, that's precisely what all these brain studies are about), without also having to believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, which is just as likely as the scenario you posit.
Oh, and you personally have done nothing to deserve scorn. I just don't suffer proverbial fools gladly.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
Originally posted by scottishinnzFair enough.
Indeed, as has been pointed out we don't definitively know this for certain. However, based on the relative proportions of carbon and other elements found in the universe at large, there is a relatively good case to be made for it.
Diamonds form under high temperatures and high pressure, with carbon of course; so it would make sense.
Furthermore, the carbon is heavier than all the hydrogen and helium so it would fall to centre of Jupiter above the lighter elements; I am getting this right? Would there also be heavier elements, perhaps some metals, in the core as well, mixed in this diamond (making it unpure)?
What are the propertions for carbon in the universe then?
Originally posted by techsouthIf you don't have a definition for consciousness, how can you expect to use it as an argument for anything? You claim that there is no objective test for consciousness, and science cannot study it, but that you can readily verify it? How exactly is this possible? It seems akin to me to saying that I talk to God, therefore He must exist. Of course, I can't prove this, but I can readily verify it to myself so I can use it as an argument (apparently). I believe consciousness is the sum of all the chemical reactions in the brain, and until you give me another definition this is what I am going to assume you mean when you refer to it.
You capture the very essence of why scientists are going to have a difficult time studying conciousness.
I don't have a further definition. I just am of the belief that others are like me, and thus I can use this word and others will recognize what I am talking about. If others don't have conciousness, then I might as well try to explain it to a compu ...[text shortened]... .
Those of you who don't have conciousness will of course be confused by this statement.
Originally posted by Bad wolfIt's hard to find a reliable estimate. At a guess, probably somewhere around 30% of non-solar material by mass.
Fair enough.
Diamonds form under high temperatures and high pressure, with carbon of course; so it would make sense.
Furthermore, the carbon is heavier than all the hydrogen and helium so it would fall to centre of Jupiter above the lighter elements; I am getting this right? Would there also be heavier elements, perhaps some metals, in the core as well, m ...[text shortened]... in this diamond (making it unpure)?
What are the propertions for carbon in the universe then?
Originally posted by whiteroseAs I said, I can readily verify it for myself. I'm not trying to prove to you have I have it, nor do I really know if you have it. What we are doing here on RHP is having a conversation, and perhaps doing a thought experiment. I'm not asking for any funding from the goverment nor private industry.
If you don't have a definition for consciousness, how can you expect to use it as an argument for anything? You claim that there is no objective test for consciousness, and science cannot study it, but that you can readily verify it? How exactly is this possible? It seems akin to me to saying that I talk to God, therefore He must exist. Of course, I can't ...[text shortened]... ou give me another definition this is what I am going to assume you mean when you refer to it.
If I am an eye-witness to a murder, I am not needing anyone to prove to me it happened. I might be called to support a proof in court. The old cliche "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" would not have hold on me when I am the eyewitness. Of course I'm not sending someone to jail on just my own confidence, but my own beliefs are free align with what I have observed. All I am doing concerning conciousness is asking each person to consider what they see in their own mind. I don't presume you see the same thing when I look in my mind. I am just saying for myself, the fact that I have conciousness results in hesitency to believe that all there is to me is chemical reactions.
All I am trying to do is give food for thought, not proof of anything. For all I know, you don't experience conciousness, and thus it is perfectly reasonable for you to presume you are nothing but chemicals. Since I am merely offering food for thought, I would hope what I say would be considered as food for thought rather than a failed scientific study.
If your own introspection produces nothing that makes you even suspect there is more to you than chemicals, then all I can say is "never mind". As I said before, I can't define conciousness, but I find it more plausible to believe that others are like me and can surmise what I am talking about when I say 'conciousness'.
Originally posted by techsouth"I am just saying for myself, the fact that I have conciousness results in hesitency to believe that all there is to me is chemical reactions."
As I said, I can readily verify it for myself. I'm not trying to prove to you have I have it, nor do I really know if you have it. What we are doing here on RHP is having a conversation, and perhaps doing a thought experiment. I'm not asking for any funding from the goverment nor private industry.
If I am an eye-witness to a murder, I am not needing ...[text shortened]... thers are like me and can surmise what I am talking about when I say 'conciousness'.
As I already pointed out, by my definition of consciousness this is a nonissue. Since you refuse to give me any sort of alternate definition, how can we have a conversation about it?
Originally posted by whiterosePerhaps you are way ahead of me and have thought this all through far beyond. Perhaps you've reached a point where you can discount things that I cannot yet discount.
"I am just saying for myself, the fact that I have conciousness results in hesitency to believe that all there is to me is chemical reactions."
As I already pointed out, by my definition of consciousness this is a nonissue. Since you refuse to give me any sort of alternate definition, how can we have a conversation about it?
I'm not insisting that you agree with my conclusion. But when you look inside your own mind (not anyone elses), do you not see something that allows you to at least relate to the phenomenom I am trying to describe? Perhaps you used to could relate, but have figure it all out. If you cannot even relate, then all I can say is "never mind".
I don't offer a definition for conciousness, but if you choose to "define" it as the mere product of chemicals, then it is necessary to assume my whole premise false in forming your definition. It is circular reasoning to then take that definition and claim it disproves my premise.
Nothing in my life hinges on persuading you nor winning an argument over this. I am merely offering food for thought that can be skipped at your own descretion.