Computer Scientists Prove God Exists

[dank]

If we were simply the brain we would have no need for consciousness as we would simply be robots programmed to react to things.

Isn't this what you are doing, though? Things happen, and you react to them, based on your best assessment of the situation. And if you don't have any assessment of a situation, you just pick a random choice, hope it's good, and go with it. At least that's how I do it. How do you do it?

This is not the case, we are live beings, we are consciousness, we have free will, we're not the brain.  If you have ever had an outer body experience, you would realize this.

Free will just means we have a choice on how we react to our surroundings. That's all. It doesn't matter if you're practicing free will within your body, or outside of your body. You're still experiencing something, and racting to things. Unless you don't react to things? Or maybe you react to things not based on your best assessment of the situation (aka based on what you have learned in the past), but instead react based on some outside source of information that comes from outside of this world? (that would explain why you have made so many awful choices...)

Tell me, how does the brain create a consciousness?  Because from my understanding it can neither be created or destroyed.

Energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Let's consider your side of this. If you have a thought, you have taken one state of how things are, and changed it into another state, whether that's changes in electrochemistry, changes in cosmic consciousness, changes in some ether, or whatever. Doesn't matter. Change, of any kind, requires some amount of energy. Again, doesn't it doesn't matter what the energy is, or where it comes from, just that it requires energy. Pretty much by definition, since nothing can move or readjust without using up some energy. You claim that consciousness can not be destroyed, but that would suggest that it would have to go on thinking about things and changing from one state to another indefinitely, using up energy in the process. That means it would have to use up an infinite amount of energy. But the two things we absolutely know for a fact are 1) energy in our universe is not infinite (entropy will eventually cause all energy in the universe to collapse to zero), and 2) you can't make a perpetual motion device that creates energy out of nothing. Having a consciousness that can never be destroyed, and is thus always using up energy to think, is basically the same thing as having a perpetual motion device that is creating energy, which, as you have also said, can not be created or destroyed.

So, the answer is, consciousness is created by taking some energy source (food, water, electricity, cosmic carma, whatever), and converting it into changes of the state of mind. Biologists, psychologists, and scientists in general would say that the body converts food and water into electrochemical components, sends them to your brain via your veins and arteries, and your brain then uses that energy to run and process things, changing your perception, states of mind, and thoughts, which gives you consciousness. And if your brain ever runs out of energy (you die, or are brain starved from choking), your brain can't convert energy into consciousness any more, and your brain simply shuts off, like your computer would if you were to pull the plug.

People who are not biologists, psychologists, or scientists, say other things.

When hell's angels were circling my friends house, I would naturally react in fear but I used my freewill to be at peace.  Once you've had singularity within oneself, you realize you control what happens to you, not the world around you.

You're making two false assumptions, there is infinite energy in the universe and humans can tap into it, creating or channeling for a better word as much energy as one can.

We are less of human beings having a spiritual experience than we are spiritual beings having a human experience.

I think you would agree if you experienced being outside of your body.

[dank]

The world we are in may appear finite, but there's infinite dimensions or channels we can tune to right where you are.

[Vod]

Once you've had singularity within oneself, you realize you control what happens to you, not the world around you.

Then why did you get $10,000 in debt?  Did you do that on purpose?

[NewLiberty]

As a compensation for the time and effort spent on this discussion by many, I would like to suggest watching two wonderful movies, that the electrons in our brains have spontaneously created "by chance"

"The Game" (1997) with Michael Douglas
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119174/

"The Truman Show" (1998) with Jim Carrey
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120382/

Have fun!

I'll toss "eXistenZ" for the (1999) entry on that pile.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120907/

[blablahblah]

If we were simply the brain we would have no need for consciousness as we would simply be robots programmed to react to things.

Isn't this what you are doing, though? Things happen, and you react to them, based on your best assessment of the situation. And if you don't have any assessment of a situation, you just pick a random choice, hope it's good, and go with it. At least that's how I do it. How do you do it?

This is not the case, we are live beings, we are consciousness, we have free will, we're not the brain.  If you have ever had an outer body experience, you would realize this.

Free will just means we have a choice on how we react to our surroundings.

If you have a choice, then it's possible that you not part of those surroundings, and that you might have a mind that is spiritually/metaphysically/mumbo-jumboishly separate from the physical reality that your brain is made from. That's what makes the question of free will so significant.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that there exists an objective reality -- a real outside world that keeps existing even when you've got your eyes shut. In that case:

1) If there is "real" free will:
Sometimes (maybe not very often, and maybe only for small things...) you can change reality by committing a choice and "magically" interfering in the ongoing chain-reaction of events since the Big Bang. Let's say that for scientific purposes there was a copy of the universe, which was identical in every respect except that you weren't able to make that particular choice in the copy, which meant that something different could have happened, causing the paths of the two universes to diverge. Therefore, whoever or whatever is making the choice, they are not part of that causal reality. They are operating outside of it. They were able to alter the universe!

2) If there is "illusory" free will:
You think you have a choice, or it sometimes seems like there is a choice, therefore take your pick:
a) Your perception of reality is correct, so you really do have a choice, therefore go to 1).
b) Your perception has been fooled into a false belief that there's a choice. Therefore your perception of reality must also be an illusion (at least the free will part). Therefore, inside your illusion of reality, free will is real so go to 1).
c) You've 'gamed' option b) because you realise that what seemed like a choice was just an illusion, chance, decaying potassium isotopes or something similar forcing your hand. Therefore you can either play the game and make an illusory choice, or you can accept that you don't really have a choice. Which will it be? The illusion seems inescapable -- each new, bigger reality seems to give you the illusory freedom to choose (i) whether you want to play the game or (ii) accept that the smaller reality was fake and so is this one, ad infinitum. Therefore, inescapable illusion is equivalent to real, so go to 1).

3) Real lack of free will:
You can't do #1, and you can't get to it from #2. Therefore you don't even have the illusion of free will. You're never presented with any choices, real or imagined. I'm rejecting this option out of hand because it goes completely against my illusion of reality.

Therefore free will must exist, and (barring any major logical boo-boos) we must have some sort of existence outside of the reality that we think we exist in.

[hawkeye]

1) If there is "real" free will:
Sometimes (maybe not very often, and maybe only for small things...) you can change reality by committing a choice and "magically" interfering in the ongoing chain-reaction of events since the Big Bang. Let's say that for scientific purposes there was a copy of the universe, which was identical in every respect except that you weren't able to make that particular choice in the copy, which meant that something different could have happened, causing the paths of the two universes to diverge. Therefore, whoever or whatever is making the choice, they are not part of that causal reality. They are operating outside of it. They were able to alter the universe!

I like the way you have defined free will here and shown how it interferes with the causal chain of events.  succinct, and to the point.

2) If there is "illusory" free will:
You think you have a choice, or it sometimes seems like there is a choice, therefore take your pick:
a) Your perception of reality is correct, so you really do have a choice, therefore go to 1).
b) Your perception has been fooled into a false belief that there's a choice. Therefore your perception of reality must also be an illusion (at least the free will part). Therefore, inside your illusion of reality, free will is real so go to 1).
c) You've 'gamed' option b) because you realise that what seemed like a choice was just an illusion, chance, decaying potassium isotopes or something similar forcing your hand. Therefore you can either play the game and make an illusory choice, or you can accept that you don't really have a choice. Which will it be? The illusion seems inescapable -- each new, bigger reality seems to give you the illusory freedom to choose (i) whether you want to play the game or (ii) accept that the smaller reality was fake and so is this one, ad infinitum. Therefore, inescapable illusion is equivalent to real, so go to 1).

It's simple really.  Your choice was just the choice you were always going to make.  The software* in your brain was a certain way at birth and then has been modified by experience, but it's still just software.  You get a certain amount of input from the environment which the software of your brain processes and comes out with output.  Just like a computer that has a certain configuration and receives the same input over and over and produces the same output so too do we.  We become "aware" of the decision after it has already been made and that's where the "illusion" part comes in.  It seems illusory but it isn't an illusion any more than the sun going around the Earth is an illusion.  Physical reality just appears different than it actually is in both cases.  That's just to do with our perceptions.

Now, if say someone was to gather all that information and predict what we were going to do and tell us of the prediction, that is then new input that wasn't taken into consideration when the person was making the prediction, therefore our brain may choose to go against the prediction again depending on how our brain reacts to these things.  I think my brain would almost certainly then choose something else once it learned of the prediction.

*When I say software I don't mean it in the computer sense obviously as the brain is all just hardware but it is "malleable" in a way that computer hardware isn't.  It's just shorthand.

[NewLiberty]

Wetware.

At a low enough level, all software is really hardware. 

And a many orders of magnitude lower than that, it might be all software.

[the joint]

One might flip that over and suggest that mathematical laws are derived from observing physical reality.  Newton and the apple, and all that.

One might, but it doesn't work the same way.  Note that you say 'observing' physical reality, and unless you have a theory of observation then simply observing physical reality to describe it isn't much good.  The key distinction is that "observing" is largely a mental process that cannot be studied empirically.  So, when you then try to form a theory about reality without being able to take into account a real but non-empirical aspect of reality, then that theory will lack external consistency.

Just saying "the set of all sets, includes itself" is not all that meaningful.  Nor is "fundamental inseparability" without stuff to which such a theory might apply.

You'd be surprised what can be logically inferred from simple statements.   1=1 for example has vast implications.  

Fundamental inseparability touches upon the issue of the nature of identity.  Wouldn't you consider this an important matter given that you're...well...you?

The notion of what is subservient to which is not all that meaningful.

 

It's not?  There are entire logical fallacies based upon that (fallacies of hasty generalization and slothful induction).  Also, set theory...

Math serves to describe the physical world, so to then suggest that the physical world "obeys" in "subservience" to mathematics is going to raise some questions that may be difficult to answer with anything other than "well, we just haven't discovered all the mathematics yet".  All that says is that we haven't yet made observations of the physical world to the level where we have the language to describe it.

See what I said above about the distinction between observation (non-empirical) and physical reality (empirical). All you need to do is realize that the scientific method is essentially one of many theories of knowledge that utilizes a certain set of tools and wields certain assumptions.  Then, see that there are other (valid) theories of knowledge that utilize other tools that empirical ones do not, and may even hold fewer initial assumptions (thereby adhering more closely to Occam's Razor).

LHC, E8, and all the rest are on a path to developing that language, but are "subservient" to the engineering effort to make the observations.  They serve each other.

Carrying off of your last quote snippet, I think that part of what you're alluding to is certain limitations of mathematics.  For example, the 'undecidable' nature of math makes it difficult to discern whether one model is more or less valid than another in describing something (e.g. which is better in describing human interaction:  a behavioral model or a cognitive one?).  Because mathematics also has limitations, forming a purely mathematical model of reality doesn't do any good either.  A good theory of reality not only needs to account for all of reality, both mental and physical, but it also needs to take into account theory making.  In fact, a theory of theories is a requirement given that any description or definition of anything ever is a miniature theory of that thing.  Theories aren't just hypotheses that have been rigorously tested and supported; theories can be logical, illogical, right, wrong, small or large in scope, etc.

Interestingly enough, you touched upon what I believe is the essence of the solution.  A certain type of language is needed in order to talk about reality, theories, and even language itself...a 'metalanguage' (not my term).

[hawkeye]

Wetware.

At a low enough level, all software is really hardware. 

And a many orders of magnitude lower than that, it might be all software.

I agree software is all really hardware.   

If there is a magnitude (or magnitudes) lower that would still be hardware at the very bottom.  Right?

[NewLiberty]

Wetware.

At a low enough level, all software is really hardware. 

And a many orders of magnitude lower than that, it might be all software.

I agree software is all really hardware.   

If there is a magnitude (or magnitudes) lower that would still be hardware at the very bottom.  Right?

All I have down there is a haze of probabilities, so who knows?

[superresistant]

So, are you saying that you can have consciousness, without actually being conscious? (defined as awake and aware of your surroundings or your existence) I doon't follow, as I understand consciousness as being conscious. So when you are in a comma, you are unconscious, and your consciousness is off. Or do you simply mean that the thing that contains your consciousness still exists, thus your coonsciousness still exists, but it's just not doing any consciousing?

Most observers used to believe the world being flat and being on top of elephants and turtles was possible. Now, many believe that the idea of god is impossible. If you claim that what observers believe makes the world what it is, that suggests to me that if most observers believe the world is flat, then the world is flat, and if they believe that god can't exist, then god can't exist. What am I missing?

Being conscious mean of being aware of the surrounding. It is not the same as the consciousness.
Even with your definition of being conscious, I have to tell you that people in coma are aware of their surrounding, they can hear for example.

Look at it an other way :

The brain receive about 400 billion bits of information per second but you only use 2000 Bits. Based on that, aren't you unconscious right now, every day, since always ?

If you take your definition, you should state that you are unconscious but you know it is not true. Consciousness does not depend of the quantity of information you process. Consciousness is not just the brain.

Theses ridiculous 2000 Bits per second is what you call the real world. It is nothing, it is an illusion compared to the universe.

We are all in coma until realising it.

Yes, if I wake up or just open an eye from my coma, I become a new observer of the world. I am altering my consciousness therefore I am changing the world.

[dank]

We are all in coma until realising it.

Yes, if I wake up or just open an eye from my coma, I become a new observer of the world. I am altering my consciousness therefore I am changing the world.

http://youtu.be/ImpAU8ctkeg?t=21s

[Rassah]

All you need to do is realize that the scientific method is essentially one of many theories of knowledge that utilizes a certain set of tools and wields certain assumptions.  Then, see that there are other (valid) theories of knowledge that utilize other tools that empirical ones do not, and may even hold fewer initial assumptions (thereby adhering more closely to Occam's Razor).

That is probably the weirdest statement I have read in a while. I didn't think aquiring knowledge could be subjected to the distinction of "theory" "hypothesis" or "fact." It also risks running into the issue of how you define "knowledge" and acquizition thereof. E.g. someone coul be claiming to be acquiring knowledge from reading tea leaves, while someone else might point out that they are only acquiring bs.

[Rassah]

Being conscious mean of being aware of the surrounding. It is not the same as the consciousness.
Even with your definition of being conscious, I have to tell you that people in coma are aware of their surrounding, they can hear for example.

If they are aware, then they aren't in a coma, and were misdiagnosed, which obviously can happen somewhat frequently if we don't bother spending money to test people properly (ir if we didn't have all the knowledge about it until recently). Similarly to how we used to misdiagnose death, when it was just coma, and accidentally bury people alive (then added bells they can ring from their underground casket, which is where "saved by the bell" comes from). A coma is by definition lack of consciousness and brain awareness. So, a small minority of people who were assumed (without proper testing) to be in a coma, showing that they are in fact aware, doesn't discount the majority of people who go into a coma (including many induuced comas surgeons perform), who wake up with no concept, memory, or experience of the time that passed.

So, what is the definition of consciousness, compared to being conscious?

The brain receive about 400 billion bits of information per second but you only use 2000 Bits. Based on that, aren't you unconscious right now, every day, since always ?

Source? I've never heard of this before. Assuming true, where are the 400 billion bits coming from? And how do we know that we don't use them, instead of use them automatically without thinking about them, same as we breathe and make out heart beat?

[dank]

Being conscious mean of being aware of the surrounding. It is not the same as the consciousness.
Even with your definition of being conscious, I have to tell you that people in coma are aware of their surrounding, they can hear for example.

If they are aware, then they aren't in a coma, and were misdiagnosed, which obviously can happen somewhat frequently if we don't bother spending money to test people properly (ir if we didn't have all the knowledge about it until recently). Similarly to how we used to misdiagnose death, when it was just coma, and accidentally bury people alive (then added bells they can ring from their underground casket, which is where "saved by the bell" comes from). A coma is by definition lack of consciousness and brain awareness. So, a small minority of people who were assumed (without proper testing) to be in a coma, showing that they are in fact aware, doesn't discount the majority of people who go into a coma (including many induuced comas surgeons perform), who wake up with no concept, memory, or experience of the time that passed.

So, what is the definition of consciousness, compared to being conscious?

Sorta like when you sleep, right?  You retain consciousness when you sleep but you may not be conscious.

[MaxBTC1]

This reminds me of that article about the Nigerian student who proved that Gay's marriage is scientifically wrong or something

Edit: found the article lulz
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/13/nigerian-student-science-prove-gay-marriage-wrong_n_3920879.html

[superresistant]

We are all in coma until realising it.
Yes, if I wake up or just open an eye from my coma, I become a new observer of the world. I am altering my consciousness therefore I am changing the world.

http://youtu.be/ImpAU8ctkeg?t=21s

haha great

[the joint]

All you need to do is realize that the scientific method is essentially one of many theories of knowledge that utilizes a certain set of tools and wields certain assumptions.  Then, see that there are other (valid) theories of knowledge that utilize other tools that empirical ones do not, and may even hold fewer initial assumptions (thereby adhering more closely to Occam's Razor).

That is probably the weirdest statement I have read in a while. I didn't think aquiring knowledge could be subjected to the distinction of "theory" "hypothesis" or "fact." It also risks running into the issue of how you define "knowledge" and acquizition thereof. E.g. someone coul be claiming to be acquiring knowledge from reading tea leaves, while someone else might point out that they are only acquiring bs.

Theories can be right, wrong, large or small in scope, consistent or inconsistent, incomplete, etc.  Someone could indeed state that they believe reading tea leaves is a method by which knowledge is acquired.  Whether you think it's bs or not doesn't mean it's not a theory.  A theory is simply a explanatory description of something.

I'm not sure why you think it's weird to that's the scientific method as a theory of knowledge because that's essentially what it is.  It's the idea that one can learn about reality through empirical study.

[Rassah]

Sorta like when you sleep, right?  You retain consciousness when you sleep but you may not be conscious.

Not at all, actually. You don't dream when you are in a coma. You black out, then you come to, and a lot of time passed without you realizing it. It's like a blink, except when you open your eyes, you may be all groggy and disoriented. It's rather scary, actually.

[dank]

Yeah, like when people sleep and don't dream.