Must the First Cause be Conscious/Self-Aware?
Moderator:Metacrock
rotflol
Prophet Muhammad (God send peace and blessings upon him) is reported to have said, "God says 'I am as My servant thinks I am' " ~ Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 9 #502 (Chapter 93, "Oneness of God")
- KR Wordgazer
- Posts:1410
- Joined:Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Re: Must the First Cause be Conscious/Self-Aware?
Ok, I've been poking around the Internet, reading what people have to say about "mind" and "thought" and coming to some ideas of my own. I think both definitions as presented above are too simple.QuantumTroll wrote: At its basic level, thought is the transformation of one state of mind into another. By "state of mind", I literally mean the micro-state of your mental being, including every feeling, tendency, notion, memory, idea, and even sensory input. When you do the tiniest bit of thinking, this state will change in some fashion. At heart, I consider the state of mind to be information (in our case encoded in the physical state of our brain, in a robotic AI encoded in the physical state of a microchip, in God it would exist in some other way). If you accept that the mind is information and that thought is a change in the state of mind, then thinking is clearly a computation and computational theory applies.
"Mind" is more than "information" -- or else a computer could be said to have a "mind." Mind must include not only information, but conscious regard of that information. It also has to include what I can only describe as "attitude" -- the relative weight or importance the mind gives to various bits of information, the desires the mind has with regards to how to treat the information, etc,; and also "intention," meaning the will of the mind towards the information. This can exist in even simple minds, like my cat's. My cat has certain information in its mind. It also gives relative weight to that information-- the presence of food in its dish vs. the presence of the toy on the floor, for instance-- and it applies some form of intention to that information (largely instinctive in its case, but there is some randomness there too which indicates freedom: such as whether to lie down on the blue recliner or the black computer chair for its next nap).
And "thought" has to be more than just thinking-- if thinking is computation or a change in the state of mind. "Thought" also has to include the conclusions that the mind ends up with as a result of the computational process. "Thought" has to include not just computation, but changes in attitudes and in intentions, and also the firm holding of attitudes and intentions in the face of conflicting input. Anyone who has remained true to his/her spouse in the face of a tempting invitation by another understands that this holding firm to the will is also part of thought, though one might not actually have to actively think, as in compute, the relative advantages or disadvantages of going with another sexual partner.
So there are elements of "thought" that do not have to imply "change." If God is such that all the computations, all the calculations, all the coming to conclusions, can be taken as read, so that the resulting knowledge is timeless, then God still has "thoughts." God also, as "Mind," is more than just a giant database-- God has conscious regard of the information, and attitude and intention about the information, even in a state with no space-time. The intention to create space-time would "always" have been present. In terms of our understanding, we see the "point " at which space-time became a reality-- at which point God, having made space-time, began to interact with it and respond to it-- at which point God's thoughts began also to have more of what we consider active "thinking."
This is just a lay-person's attempt. Any inaccuracies or inconsistencies etc., will I hope be treated with tolerance.
- QuantumTroll
- Posts:1073
- Joined:Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:54 am
- Location:Uppsala, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Must the First Cause be Conscious/Self-Aware?
Cool, I look forward to reaching some sort of consensus on this and seeing what it means. Do you think we'll get there?KR Wordgazer wrote:Ok, I've been poking around the Internet, reading what people have to say about "mind" and "thought" and coming to some ideas of my own. I think both definitions as presented above are too simple.QuantumTroll wrote: At its basic level, thought is the transformation of one state of mind into another. By "state of mind", I literally mean the micro-state of your mental being, including every feeling, tendency, notion, memory, idea, and even sensory input. When you do the tiniest bit of thinking, this state will change in some fashion. At heart, I consider the state of mind to be information (in our case encoded in the physical state of our brain, in a robotic AI encoded in the physical state of a microchip, in God it would exist in some other way). If you accept that the mind is information and that thought is a change in the state of mind, then thinking is clearly a computation and computational theory applies.
I agree and disagree. "Mind" is more than any information, but I do not think that it is more than a certain kind of information. I think a computer could have a mind, if only we knew enough about minds to program it properly (either by giving it a mind, or by giving it a way to develop a mind). Computers already can have "attitude" in exactly the way you describe it (so-called neural networks operate on this principle, for example), and somewhat debatably they can have "intention" as well. If randomness indicates freedom, then computers can also have freedom."Mind" is more than "information" -- or else a computer could be said to have a "mind." Mind must include not only information, but conscious regard of that information. It also has to include what I can only describe as "attitude" -- the relative weight or importance the mind gives to various bits of information, the desires the mind has with regards to how to treat the information, etc,; and also "intention," meaning the will of the mind towards the information. This can exist in even simple minds, like my cat's. My cat has certain information in its mind. It also gives relative weight to that information-- the presence of food in its dish vs. the presence of the toy on the floor, for instance-- and it applies some form of intention to that information (largely instinctive in its case, but there is some randomness there too which indicates freedom: such as whether to lie down on the blue recliner or the black computer chair for its next nap).
Since it's your only element of mind that I think computers may not already possess, let's look at "intention". I would say that intention is the ability to formulate and pursue a goal, be it an internal goal (e.g. answer "who am i?") or an external goal (e.g. find a toy). The question is, do you accept the notion that a computer program can formulate its own goals? Unsurprisingly, I lean towards "yes". I'm thinking of a certain Go AI that sets up goals to meet according to some decision-making algorithm (using weighted information) and then chooses a method to pursue them. These goals aren't programmed in ahead of time, they're actually principles that it learns from experience, and some of them can be quite complex. Some of them are identical to the heuristics that human players use and others are totally bizarre. If you excuse the limited nature of this AI, you could call it a Go-playing "mind" according to your definition of the term.
Whatever you think of my response, you've already made it clear that I ought to look more closely at my own notions of what constitutes a mind as opposed to a clever arrangement of information. I suspect that I think "mind" is not a clear-cut property, but rather a spectrum condition where something can be more or less mind-y. In that case, maybe I ought to come up with a set of metrics to measure mind-iness.
If mind includes attitude and intention, then thinking (as defined in your quote) already includes "changes in attitudes and in intentions, and also the firm holding of attitudes and intentions in the face of conflicting input". You may not have to actively think in a conscious way, but somewhere in your mind that computation is happening. Otherwise I don't see how the internal fact that you're deeply loyal to your spouse would rise to the level where it affects action. Maybe I didn't understand what you wrote, but as far as I see you didn't define "thought" as anything different than I did. Holding firm and resisting temptation, while it may seem like you're NOT changing your mind, still involves the (perhaps unconscious) thought of "I'm going to resist this" and an associated change in the state of your mind. If nothing else, this is seen in the feelings and new memories you have after the event.And "thought" has to be more than just thinking-- if thinking is computation or a change in the state of mind. "Thought" also has to include the conclusions that the mind ends up with as a result of the computational process. "Thought" has to include not just computation, but changes in attitudes and in intentions, and also the firm holding of attitudes and intentions in the face of conflicting input. Anyone who has remained true to his/her spouse in the face of a tempting invitation by another understands that this holding firm to the will is also part of thought, though one might not actually have to actively think, as in compute, the relative advantages or disadvantages of going with another sexual partner.
Let's keep talking about this. We'll get somewhere eventually.[ snipped because we should try to wait with drawing conclusions until we come to a mutual understanding of the premises ]
This is just a lay-person's attempt. Any inaccuracies or inconsistencies etc., will I hope be treated with tolerance.
Re: Must the First Cause be Conscious/Self-Aware?
have you read my thing on consciousness?
http://www.doxa.ws/science/Mind_spirit.html
It's several pages.
another major source you must check out is Journal of Consciousness studies.
have you read Chalmers?
O and you have to the Hard Sell of Human Consciousness in negations where my friend Lantz Miller really blasts Dennette. There's a synopsis on my pages about conscousness, but the real version is here:
Part I
you have to scroll down to where articles are linked, it' the last article.
http://www.datawranglers.com/negations/
Part II at bottom of this page (this is a very long article)
http://www.datawranglers.com/negations/issues/02s/
if you can only read one of these sources read the two havlves o fthe Miller article.
http://www.doxa.ws/science/Mind_spirit.html
It's several pages.
another major source you must check out is Journal of Consciousness studies.
have you read Chalmers?
O and you have to the Hard Sell of Human Consciousness in negations where my friend Lantz Miller really blasts Dennette. There's a synopsis on my pages about conscousness, but the real version is here:
Part I
you have to scroll down to where articles are linked, it' the last article.
http://www.datawranglers.com/negations/
Part II at bottom of this page (this is a very long article)
http://www.datawranglers.com/negations/issues/02s/
if you can only read one of these sources read the two havlves o fthe Miller article.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Re: Must the First Cause be Conscious/Self-Aware?
what I have a hard time with is that QT can't understand how the reductionist view he holds, which just reduces inner states to chemicals, is nothing more than mind control. Its' the essence of one dimensionality. I don't see how people can't get the link between political control and control of other people's inner lives, by reductionism that takes away any sort of value to their inner notions of meaning and freedom.
I am certain QT would opposes any sort of overt motions in that direction and yet the ideas he espouses seem to be to just set up the basis of it.
I am certain QT would opposes any sort of overt motions in that direction and yet the ideas he espouses seem to be to just set up the basis of it.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
- KR Wordgazer
- Posts:1410
- Joined:Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Re: Must the First Cause be Conscious/Self-Aware?
Quantum, you say a computer can have everything I say "mind" has-- but you left out one of the first things I mentioned: consciousness. A mind, first of all, is conscious; it is aware of its surroundings, it has at least some rudimentary sense of its own self (and don't tell me my cat has no sense of himself! It's not the same as mine, but there is something there). Consciousness is difficult to define; like obscenity, you just know it when you see it. But a computer doesn't have it, and I doubt it ever will.
As for "thought," you seem to me to be still so caught up in the idea that mind must equal brain, that you cannot conceive of mind without change. But I can, and that is what I was trying to convey with all the talk of changes in attitudes and intentions at a point where they have already occurred. It was an aid to conceptualization of this idea I'm trying to convey. I know my mind is subject to change-- I am a creature of space-time. My brain can only consciously process one thing, or maybe a few things, at one time-- to stop thinking of a memory means that my mind changes with regard to that memory. But what if everything I already knew, everything I remember, every conclusion I have come to, was all present at once in my conscious thought? What if there was never a time when I did not know/remember/hold these conclusions? Could you truly say I had no thoughts?
You might say I couldn't, because I need to change to think, in space-time. But if there were no space-time? If, except for myself, there was nothing and nowhen? The "everything I knew/remember/hold as conclusions" would be vastly different from what it is now. There would exist only a sort of communion with myself, within myself, about this knowledge I have of myself and the intentions I might have to create a situation where there is other than myself-- and the understanding of how to make it work. This is, I imagine, the state of the Mind of God "before" God made space-time and began to interact with it. This is what I am attempting to get you to imagine.
I have posted all this before looking at any of Metacrock's new links above, in order to clear up misunderstandings that I think occurred between my giving of my definition-ideas, and your response to them, Quantum. I plan to review the links.
As for "thought," you seem to me to be still so caught up in the idea that mind must equal brain, that you cannot conceive of mind without change. But I can, and that is what I was trying to convey with all the talk of changes in attitudes and intentions at a point where they have already occurred. It was an aid to conceptualization of this idea I'm trying to convey. I know my mind is subject to change-- I am a creature of space-time. My brain can only consciously process one thing, or maybe a few things, at one time-- to stop thinking of a memory means that my mind changes with regard to that memory. But what if everything I already knew, everything I remember, every conclusion I have come to, was all present at once in my conscious thought? What if there was never a time when I did not know/remember/hold these conclusions? Could you truly say I had no thoughts?
You might say I couldn't, because I need to change to think, in space-time. But if there were no space-time? If, except for myself, there was nothing and nowhen? The "everything I knew/remember/hold as conclusions" would be vastly different from what it is now. There would exist only a sort of communion with myself, within myself, about this knowledge I have of myself and the intentions I might have to create a situation where there is other than myself-- and the understanding of how to make it work. This is, I imagine, the state of the Mind of God "before" God made space-time and began to interact with it. This is what I am attempting to get you to imagine.
I have posted all this before looking at any of Metacrock's new links above, in order to clear up misunderstandings that I think occurred between my giving of my definition-ideas, and your response to them, Quantum. I plan to review the links.
Wag more.
Bark less.
Bark less.
- QuantumTroll
- Posts:1073
- Joined:Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:54 am
- Location:Uppsala, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Must the First Cause be Conscious/Self-Aware?
Um, how exactly is the connection between the mind and physiology "mind control" or "political control"? You're right, I really don't understand that. Neuroscience and physiological psychology don't take away the value of our experiences. Far from it. Does the knowledge of what the sun is make its heat any less pleasant, does the knowledge of stars make the night sky less moving? I submit that a deeper understanding of reality improves our appreciation, and that includes the reality of our inner lives. A little science doesn't give anyone control of your inner life, but perhaps it can give you better control over your own life.Metacrock wrote:what I have a hard time with is that QT can't understand how the reductionist view he holds, which just reduces inner states to chemicals, is nothing more than mind control. Its' the essence of one dimensionality. I don't see how people can't get the link between political control and control of other people's inner lives, by reductionism that takes away any sort of value to their inner notions of meaning and freedom.
I am certain QT would opposes any sort of overt motions in that direction and yet the ideas he espouses seem to be to just set up the basis of it.
- QuantumTroll
- Posts:1073
- Joined:Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:54 am
- Location:Uppsala, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Must the First Cause be Conscious/Self-Aware?
Err, right. "conscious regard of information". I kind of took that as a re-phrasing of what mind does, rather than as a requirement of mind. Any consciousness is a mind, and an unconscious mind is not a mind at all. And consciousness is very poorly defined, so it is hard to use it as the basis for any sort of discussion. For instance, I think a computer that acts like a human should be considered conscious. An animal that demonstrates self-awareness should also be considered conscious. And, like a mind, I would say that consciousness is something that beings can exhibit to various degrees. So for us to get to a point where we agree on what a mind is, I think we need a decent definition of consciousness. It so happens that I think everything else you wrote to define "mind" is probably sufficient. Perhaps you could answer this question for me: How would you determine whether something/someone has consciousness?KR Wordgazer wrote:Quantum, you say a computer can have everything I say "mind" has-- but you left out one of the first things I mentioned: consciousness. A mind, first of all, is conscious; it is aware of its surroundings, it has at least some rudimentary sense of its own self (and don't tell me my cat has no sense of himself! It's not the same as mine, but there is something there). Consciousness is difficult to define; like obscenity, you just know it when you see it. But a computer doesn't have it, and I doubt it ever will.
I would say that you had thoughts, but aren't having any new ones. I can imagine a mind that stretches back eternally and has some "fixed ideas" that stretch back equally long, but I cannot imagine a mind that is incapable of thinking something new. That said, if we step back and look at the Earth as a 4-dimensional object, then our minds are very much like the mind you described. Our language really assumes a time dimension in which to do some thinking. So if you're speaking of God as a 4-D (or more) being that contains all His thoughts at once, then I guess that is fine, but I would guess that you're not...As for "thought," you seem to me to be still so caught up in the idea that mind must equal brain, that you cannot conceive of mind without change. But I can, and that is what I was trying to convey with all the talk of changes in attitudes and intentions at a point where they have already occurred. It was an aid to conceptualization of this idea I'm trying to convey. I know my mind is subject to change-- I am a creature of space-time. My brain can only consciously process one thing, or maybe a few things, at one time-- to stop thinking of a memory means that my mind changes with regard to that memory. But what if everything I already knew, everything I remember, every conclusion I have come to, was all present at once in my conscious thought? What if there was never a time when I did not know/remember/hold these conclusions? Could you truly say I had no thoughts?
Let me try to reiterate what you're trying to tell me. A God-mind would, with no space-time and no dimensionality whatsoever, contain a bunch of thoughts, memories, and conclusions (and whatever else a mind may have). In this timelessness, there would be a sort of communion within itself, and this "already" includes the intention to create Creation. Do I have it about right?You might say I couldn't, because I need to change to think, in space-time. But if there were no space-time? If, except for myself, there was nothing and nowhen? The "everything I knew/remember/hold as conclusions" would be vastly different from what it is now. There would exist only a sort of communion with myself, within myself, about this knowledge I have of myself and the intentions I might have to create a situation where there is other than myself-- and the understanding of how to make it work. This is, I imagine, the state of the Mind of God "before" God made space-time and began to interact with it. This is what I am attempting to get you to imagine.
Then I have just one question: in a "space" of no space or time, no dimensions at all, how/where is this mind stored? A non-dimensional object is a mathematical point. A point has no room for anything, let alone an expansive array of cognitive states. Perhaps more importantly, why is this concept of God so important when it seems to be logically and mathematically impossible? Why not allow your God a few space-time dimensions to exist?
I haven't read them yet, either... will do so soon-ish.I have posted all this before looking at any of Metacrock's new links above, in order to clear up misunderstandings that I think occurred between my giving of my definition-ideas, and your response to them, Quantum. I plan to review the links.
[edit: Oh, I see now I already read them at some earlier date. Soo many points at which I could offer counterarguments... some other time.]
Re: Must the First Cause be Conscious/Self-Aware?
QuantumTroll wrote:Um, how exactly is the connection between the mind and physiology "mind control" or "political control"? You're right, I really don't understand that. Neuroscience and physiological psychology don't take away the value of our experiences. Far from it. Does the knowledge of what the sun is make its heat any less pleasant, does the knowledge of stars make the night sky less moving? I submit that a deeper understanding of reality improves our appreciation, and that includes the reality of our inner lives. A little science doesn't give anyone control of your inner life, but perhaps it can give you better control over your own life.Metacrock wrote:what I have a hard time with is that QT can't understand how the reductionist view he holds, which just reduces inner states to chemicals, is nothing more than mind control. Its' the essence of one dimensionality. I don't see how people can't get the link between political control and control of other people's inner lives, by reductionism that takes away any sort of value to their inner notions of meaning and freedom.
I am certain QT would opposes any sort of overt motions in that direction and yet the ideas he espouses seem to be to just set up the basis of it.
In Central America in the 70s and 80s in countries like El Salvador, in Nicaragua before the revolution they were mascaraing compasinos to through them off their land so they could raise beef on it. they had scientific feasibility studies saying they would make a much bigger profit form the beef than from the compasinos growing cron or whatever.
the value of the compasinos to raise their families and live on land they had been on for hundreds of years were just dismissed by the governments their subjective personal values. But sicnece said they shouldn't bet there.
you make the feelings that determining and value into reprehensible things that have no place in the world; they are merely the dreaded "subjective" things that no a par with fairy tales. Then rationalize what that does to people by using reductionism; the noly things that are real are the quantifiable things. that means what makes life meaningful is out and what makes thing profitable for those in power are in.
Those objections to scientism were raised by Centeral American revolutionaries all along.
a better example is in the study of religious experince. a philosopher named Proudfoot interprits it as "reading into the experince" the doctrine one wants there. If you look at what he says he's saying the one having the experince can't know his mind, he needs the scientist to tell him what is valid and what is not in his own feelings.
that's what alt hese atheists are saying. If you say "I believe in God because I sense God's presence" they say "that's subjective, thets irrational to believe what you feel, you have to have a ratinal person (one who subscribes to my view point) to tell what's permissible to feel because you can't know what' s in your own head.
that's the whole atheist community (with just a few notable exceptions) is into trying to bully and dictate to the the vast majority what is permissible for them to feel.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Re: Must the First Cause be Conscious/Self-Aware?
you are still trying to think about it as though God is an object in our world that is under the direction of the laws and rules that God himself made up. Your trying to fit God as an object into the rules of sapce/time and of timelessness that are only constructs in his own head.Let me try to reiterate what you're trying to tell me. A God-mind would, with no space-time and no dimensionality whatsoever, contain a bunch of thoughts, memories, and conclusions (and whatever else a mind may have). In this timelessness, there would be a sort of communion within itself, and this "already" includes the intention to create Creation. Do I have it about right?
you are dealing with a level of reality that is more basic far removed from anything we can ever know about. How the hell can you expect to compare that to our experinces?
there you go again. it's all gotta what we know. It' all gotta be our experinces that determine everything that's real? noting can ever be beyond what we see and what we know?Then I have just one question: in a "space" of no space or time, no dimensions at all, how/where is this mind stored?
why can't you get the idea. our reality is the thought. the mind thinking, why it would have the same need we do? why would the reality of that mind stack up to this, the reality it creates?
the reality we know as "reality" is the thought. why would there ever be a need to ask stuff like that?
A non-dimensional object is a mathematical point. A point has no room for anything, let alone an expansive array of cognitive states. Perhaps more importantly, why is this concept of God so important when it seems to be logically and mathematically impossible? Why not allow your God a few space-time dimensions to exist?
you never heard of the Platonic forms? You never Rad Plato? you don't understand the concept of the forms?
do you ask Buddhists "in Nirvana when everything is one and its' all just this one montlyic reality where is it stored?"
do you ask a Vedantic Hindu where is this Bramin thing stored? does Bramin take up a lot of room?
do you think the Vedanta crowd needs to come up with an idea of where Brahmin get's a body?
Being itself transcends subject object dichotomy. God is neither subject nor object. There is no object called "god" that can be compared with other ojbects.
where is being itself stored?
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief