The Concept of GOD: FTW or FTL?

[khazalid]

it is a bit more cerebral than the title suggests

[jonesthecurl]

Dracula knows what its like to be a bat.


just to drag the intellectual level down

[khazalid]

in before ozzy reference

[MeDeFe]

medefe - i think we have a much better understanding of what it is to be a bat than we did a hundred or so years ago. it would be possible to replicate the sensory experience fairly exactingly if anyone had a mind to do so. how far you take sensation to be analogous to consciousness is the crux of it i suppose

I'll have to disagree, I think it could very well be impossible to replicate what it's like to be a bat so a human could experience it. How would you even go about it? And how would you know you got it even remotely right since there's no theoretical basis for how anything should feel? Even if you managed to simulate a bat in a computer down to every last microphysical detail you would have no idea of what it's like to be a bat. Not even building a perfect physical copy of a living bat would tell you anything about what it's like to be a bat, you would just end up with two bats.

I take sensations to be at the heart of consciousness, they are so intrinsic to us that it's probably impossible for us to ever actually convey them. Just try to describe colours to someone who's been blind from birth, or describe a particular shade of blue to someone else by phone so they can pick it out on a scale. Of course we are able to talk about colours and sounds and smells, but we are then always operating within the framework of language that is defined by how it is used and can indeed be described in purely functional terms. That's where Dennet goes wrong, he takes our statements and judgements about experiences to be the experiences, and thus misses the big question of why we have experiences at all.

[khazalid]

the sentient experience of 'bat-ness' would be the only thing impossible to replicate. everything physical and sensory could be done no probs, same goes for any other animal out there. it is quite likely that these parameters of experience will be the basis for the first generation of commercial VR in my opinion. we're at the stage where we know so much about animal physiology and behaviour that it is becoming plausible enough. the technology is there to replicate the tactile aspect of it. when you couple that with a deeper understanding of behaviour/habit/response to x stimulus then you have what (pretty much) amounts to being a bat, at least in my book.

[Aradhus]

I haven't read any other posts, I would just like to state with a certain degree of certainty, that the human conception of god is idiotic, moronic, infantile and embarrassing. Which obviously makes sense as humans are idiotic, moronic, infantile and embarrassing.

[MeDeFe]

the sentient experience of 'bat-ness' would be the only thing impossible to replicate.

That's a pretty big part already, and it includes a lot of what you describe in the rest of your post and claim is theoretically possible to replicate.

everything physical and sensory could be done no probs, same goes for any other animal out there. it is quite likely that these parameters of experience will be the basis for the first generation of commercial VR in my opinion. we're at the stage where we know so much about animal physiology and behaviour that it is becoming plausible enough. the technology is there to replicate the tactile aspect of it. when you couple that with a deeper understanding of behaviour/habit/response to x stimulus then you have what (pretty much) amounts to being a bat, at least in my book.

"No probs", then surely you will have no problem telling me how you would go about giving me the experience of what it's like to mainly use sounds I produce to find out how my environment is structured. Let me hazard a guess, if I'm completely wrong, do tell me how you would go about it.
Even if you directly hooked my brain up to your bat simulation (or even a real bat) and relayed all the input the bat receives to my brain, well, to what sensory part would you relay the aforementioned sonar? Hearing probably. But whichever sense of mine you'd map it to, all you'd be doing is give my brain information of a structure it has never handled before. I'd most likely just receive something "all jumbled up" that I can't make any sense of. That is probably not how it would feel to a bat. Or what about many birds' sense of magnetism? Do humans even have something remotely like it? How would you simulate the qualitative feel of having a sense for magnetism?

Consciousness is more than merely behaviour/habit/impulse-response, those are the functional terms that fail to identify the question.

[AAFitz]

the sentient experience of 'bat-ness' would be the only thing impossible to replicate.

That's a pretty big part already, and it includes a lot of what you describe in the rest of your post and claim is theoretically possible to replicate.

everything physical and sensory could be done no probs, same goes for any other animal out there. it is quite likely that these parameters of experience will be the basis for the first generation of commercial VR in my opinion. we're at the stage where we know so much about animal physiology and behaviour that it is becoming plausible enough. the technology is there to replicate the tactile aspect of it. when you couple that with a deeper understanding of behaviour/habit/response to x stimulus then you have what (pretty much) amounts to being a bat, at least in my book.

"No probs", then surely you will have no problem telling me how you would go about giving me the experience of what it's like to mainly use sounds I produce to find out how my environment is structured. Let me hazard a guess, if I'm completely wrong, do tell me how you would go about it.
Even if you directly hooked my brain up to your bat simulation (or even a real bat) and relayed all the input the bat receives to my brain, well, to what sensory part would you relay the aforementioned sonar? Hearing probably. But whichever sense of mine you'd map it to, all you'd be doing is give my brain information of a structure it has never handled before. I'd most likely just receive something "all jumbled up" that I can't make any sense of. That is probably not how it would feel to a bat. Or what about many birds' sense of magnetism? Do humans even have something remotely like it? How would you simulate the qualitative feel of having a sense for magnetism?

Consciousness is more than merely behaviour/habit/impulse-response, those are the functional terms that fail to identify the question.

You are possibly right, but you are obviously possibly wrong. It very well could be possible to hook up sonar to the human brain, and interface it with the visual cortex, and construct visual images. Its surprising that you find this concept so impossible. Already visual stimuli have been used to give some blind people some kind of image using, essentially the same thing, which is just electric current wired into the correct portions of the brain.

If you can send a visual image to the brain with visual information, certainly you can sent it to the brain via sonar generated information. The same essentially can theoretically go for any sensation, since any sensation the brain feels is on its basic level an electronic stimuli. If you are able to stimulate the correct areas in the proper sequence and position, it is quite possible, if not probable that one could fool a human brain, into thinking it was a bat...or more precisely, feeling the sensation of being a bat...if not being convinced that one is a bat...which would take a more psychological approach.

Already the human brain has shown that it can believe things that are not true, almost beyond ones imagination. To suggest it is not capable of inventing an omnipotent creator, is the same as suggesting it could not have created the idea of RA, greek mythology, scientology, mormonism, or battlestar galactica.

If human history has taught us anything, it is to not underestimate human imagination....or its capacity for evil.

[Army of GOD]

I haven't read any other posts, I would just like to state with a certain degree of certainty, that the human conception of god is idiotic, moronic, infantile and embarrassing. Which obviously makes sense as humans are idiotic, moronic, infantile and embarrassing.

You, however, are not human, but robot.

"DOES NOT COMPUTE!"

[john9blue]

I love people who talk about how dumb people are and then pretend they are above that level. You see them ALL THE TIME, especially on the internet.

[jonesthecurl]

Yeah, dumb ain't they? Not like me...

[CreepersWiener]

Well, apparently the Poll has proven the existence of God (or the existence of many God-fairing Multis) and there for the debate should probably desist.

[Aradhus]

I haven't read any other posts, I would just like to state with a certain degree of certainty, that the human conception of god is idiotic, moronic, infantile and embarrassing. Which obviously makes sense as humans are idiotic, moronic, infantile and embarrassing.

You, however, are not human, but robot.

"DOES NOT COMPUTE!"

I love people who talk about how dumb people are and then pretend they are above that level. You see them ALL THE TIME, especially on the internet.

Holy crap you two couldn't be worse trolls, or any more clueless.

[john9blue]

Please enlighten us then. We're merely "humans", you see...

[Army of GOD]

I haven't read any other posts, I would just like to state with a certain degree of certainty, that the human conception of god is idiotic, moronic, infantile and embarrassing. Which obviously makes sense as humans are idiotic, moronic, infantile and embarrassing.

You, however, are not human, but robot.

"DOES NOT COMPUTE!"

I love people who talk about how dumb people are and then pretend they are above that level. You see them ALL THE TIME, especially on the internet.

Holy crap you two couldn't be worse trolls, or any more clueless.

"SYSTEM OVERLOAD! SELF-DESTRUCT IN 5 SECONDS!"

[nietzsche]

Dennet doesn't even "explain it away", he circumvents it, leaves it out of the equation.

I think that what Dennet tries to do is give an evolutionary explanation of how consciousness could've evolved. Given that evolutionary theory is accepted by 99% of scientist he goes and tries to make sense of consciousness as an evolutionary treat humans have. Some other mammals are believed to have some little consciousness of their own.

The question regarding qualia goes a bit further than just "it has to feel some way", it goes all the way to "why does it have to feel any way at all?" There's nothing in the physical world that implies you should have an experience of red when you look at a red object, there's nothing that says you should have any experience at all. Light entering your eyes, electric impulses going to your brain, electric impulses going to your arm, bringing up your hand and catching the ball that was thrown towards you. All of that can be explained without there being any need to invoke conscious experience. Moreover, nothing in the explanation will in any way imply that there is such a thing as conscious experience. And yet I don't doubt that you are certain you have conscious experiences with a certain qualitative feel.

I must admit that I'm not very familiar with the philosophy of mind that's now practically all the philosophy practiced in the US. I've only read Dennet, with whom I share the knowledge of information and computer systems as I am a computer engineer, and a pretty-cover book on consciousness edited by Susan Blackmore although with chapters discussing the main philosopher of mind.

Having admitted that, I think the question of qualia is somehow like the question I asked myself as a child: "why me" "why I'm not somebody else". For all I cared for a time in my childhood everybody else was a zombie (perhaps with another concept for 'zombie' I'm taking it from what've read).

But seriously, who can give a good approach to the understanding of qualia? If there's someone, please enlighten me. Dennet goes ahead and says he won't try to explain it.

BTW, nietzsche if I don't fail to remember says consciousness starts when those who were owed money, developed memory in those who owed them by hard-felt means. Dennet says its an evolutionary advantage and it starts when the brain starts to grow. It also says that language is the main precursor of consciousness, as others identify oneself and then we identify ourselves, giving a chain reaction of thought.

IIRC Dennet tries to frame conscious experience in the form of judgements, but that falls short of what "conscious experience" actually means.

I'll just like to add trying to understand what 'mind' is, and why it exists at all was one of my most obsessive quests, and I guess I settled with Spinoza's thought.

If you're worried about too many technicalities I can ease your mind, Chalmers' The Conscious Mind is written in such a way that also a layman can follow it. Some of the chapters are quite technical, but those are not necessary for following the general chain of the argument. They also have an asterisk in the headings and are immediately recognizable.

I'll take your suggestion, and jot down the name of the book, but right know I'm very active and not reading much, by the night I can't read a page without falling asleep.


P.S. It's been about 5 years since I read and chew all this, I must have made at least one mistake, so feel free to correct me.

[nietzsche]

of all the germans i think feuerbach got closer to it than anyone, especially than spinoza and nietzsche. the only way to really start pulling any meaning out of god as a concept is to see it as invested in and drawing from different systems of human symbolism/actions to which divinity is attached. thereby conscious experience is god-given just as consciousness begets some form of god. golden thread and all that shit.

I'm not familiar with Feuerbach thought, therefore I cannot comment. I don't think nietzsche wrote much on consciousness tho. And about "conscious experience is god-given", I must disagree. God existence would have to be proven, and all evidence points to his inexistence. Let's keep faith away from science, even though faith is studied by the mother of all sciences (that is philosophy).

medefe - i think we have a much better understanding of what it is to be a bat than we did a hundred or so years ago. it would be possible to replicate the sensory experience fairly exactingly if anyone had a mind to do so. how far you take sensation to be analogous to consciousness is the crux of it i suppose

I don't believe this. If we could, with the help of glowing glucose, watch the full functionality of a bat's brain, we could only guess his information management, but never know 'what does it like to be a bat'.

But then again, I'm not a fan of qualia right know, perhaps when we can understand it better I'll be a fan

P.S. I'll have to read Feuerbach to know whence you take your conclusions.

[nietzsche]

I kinda like this thread.

Me too, not often do I get to discuss philosophy without my counterpart bringing to the discussion how Jesus resurrected and the exceptional paintings for the epoch Juan Diego got in his wool blanket of the Virgin Mary.

[Juan_Bottom]

Someone called???

[nietzsche]

You are possibly right, but you are obviously possibly wrong. It very well could be possible to hook up sonar to the human brain, and interface it with the visual cortex, and construct visual images. Its surprising that you find this concept so impossible. Already visual stimuli have been used to give some blind people some kind of image using, essentially the same thing, which is just electric current wired into the correct portions of the brain.

I believe you assume there's a theater inside our brain where we play what our eyes see for the sake of conscious experience. Such theater does not exist.

The process is not like that, but I've forgotten some of the details of the mechanism so I won't try to explain it, sorry. All I can say is that it involves a back and forth of feedback, recognizing objects as we already have stored/classified them in our brain. We are talking of a superb amount of back and forth cycles, of which we are unconscious as consciousness is delayed a quarter of a second If I'm not mistaken.