Technological singularity and Scientism

[John_Mann]

Is technological singularity a kind of scientism on steroids?

What you think?

 

[Architect]

No as a strict use of the body of scientific theory does not predict a singularity (e.g. the universe doesn't like singularities). In practice the strongest opponents of Singularity thinking are those most steeped in classical science. The most common charge against it is that it's a pseudo-religious ideology - e.g. "Nerd Heaven" which is the opposite of scientism.

 

[John_Mann]

Scientism is a cult (the new imperial cult) that preaches the scientific method is a universal tool that soon will find the "theory of everything" which they say is the unification of quantum mechanics (cults love the quantum) and general relativity.

They claim this theory of everything will explain (and replicate) consciousness.

So their basic axiom is consciousness must be physical.

The TS hypothesis is totally based in this premise from scientism.

And scientism is plain wrong.

 

[JR_IsP]

All right, if we define scientism as a cult, by definition, it will be wrong. Science is not accepting what others say and believe on it without asking. Science is asking why to what others say.

Science is why, if Earth is supposed to be flat, the moon eclipses show a round shadow?

Science is why, if Earth is supposed to have only 6 thousand years old, the radioactive decays of the isotopes in rocks show a 4.5 billion years old one?

Science is why does the universe expand so quickly? Why there is a universe? Why?????

Have you read about the scientific method? I don't think so. First, you need to observe, make a theory, proof it with an experiment and finally you share the results with others. That's the opposite of a cult.

I think that you're distorting the real approach of science to consciousness. If we could make an experiment that somehow will proof that consciousness is physical (or not), and a succesful theory that expain why this is, science will accept it. Even if that may proof that consciousness is not physical.

And the "theory of everything"? That doesn't have anything to do with consciousness. At all. See, relativity can explain how the big things in universe work, like stars, galaxies, planets, even the light... and gravity. Cuantum can explain how the small things work, like atoms, electrons, protons... and they found that forces are the results of a little particles, in the principal 3 forces of universe: electromagnetic force, weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force. Gravity used to be considered as an elemental force (the weakest of all), but experiments haven't show a particle for gravity, and relativity even says that gravity is not a force, but a space bending caused by matter.

"The theory of everything" is the unification of gravity in cuantum, and with that theory, Physics would develop new cool ideas that may lead us to interestellar trips, for example. Or time traveling.

I hope you understood! Greetings form Venezuela

 

[John_Mann]

No as a strict use of the body of scientific theory does not predict a singularity (e.g. the universe doesn't like singularities).

Yes.

I know TS it's not a conclusion from scientific method. That's exactly my point.

If TS it's not from SM then only scientism is left as a source (AFAIK).

"Nerd Heaven" which is the opposite of scientism.

Why?

I think it's exactly what scientism says.

 

[Black Rose]

And scientism is plain wrong.

Why? what reasons do you give?

Why do you believe a theory of everything is impossible?

Why does scientism = theory of everything?

 

[John_Mann]

Because scientism hijacks science by saying that the scientific method is the ONLY way to get knowledge. Plus they say philosophy is nonsense. But their very statement upon SM is metaphysical.

The very scientific method is built upon philosophy. Scientifc method is built upon several axioms. Axioms are metaphysical.

Scientism is wrong because is contradictory.

A hypothetical theory of everything is a metaphysical subject and not a scientific one.

And Gödel's incompleteness prevents any theory of everything.

 

[Architect]

And Gödel's incompleteness prevents any theory of everything.

No, it simply prevents postulate free unification theories.

 

[John_Mann]

No, it simply prevents postulate free unification theories.

Could you explain more about this?

Anyway "scientismists" say that a physical theory of everything (QM + GR) will explain consciousness. Wtf?

This is the very premise of TS because is expected a superhuman consciousness emerging from computers/software. In simple words singularitans expect create consciousness by tweaking physical elements (transistors and/or neurons).

In other words they want use metaphysics (axioms of the scientific method) to explain the physical world expecting the SM will disprove metaphysics (consciousness is physical).

 

[Architect]

Could you explain more about this?

The short version of the Incompleteness theorem is that you can't have a logical system without basing it on some unprovable but true statements.

Anyway "scientismists" say that a physical theory of everything (QM + GR) will explain consciousness. Wtf?

Unlikely. There's a camp of anti strong AI proponents who make an appeal to authority, basically by saying it requires QM or some such nonsense. Basically they're saying "I don't understand it so it must be impossible to understand". This sounds like a version of that.

 

[John_Mann]

The short version of the Incompleteness theorem is that you can't have a logical system without basing it on some unprovable but true statements.

Well this was already known before GI. Every logical system starts with axioms. You can't start without metaphysics.

I think GI says that's impossible to have a closed system. Every system possible will always be contigent.

Unlikely. There's a camp of anti strong AI proponents who make an appeal to authority, basically by saying it requires QM or some such nonsense. Basically they're saying "I don't understand it so it must be impossible to understand". This sounds like a version of that.

If we apply the law of induction (one axiom from the SM) we must keep thinking consciousness as metaphysical.

New atheism (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens, the "Four Horsemen") promotes scientism.

 

[Auburn]

So I had to look up scientism...

1. To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims.[11] This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply,[12] such as when the topic is perceived as beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to claims made by scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. This can be a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority. It can also address the attempt to apply "hard science" methodology and claims of certainty to the social sciences(...)

- sauce

hmm, if i've got your view down correctly you're saying that

• The use of science to try to explain consciousness = Scientism. Because it's over-reliance on a purely empirical explanation to try and explain something outside of its domain.
• TS proponents and new-atheists are just trying to get their own version of Nerd Heaven, misapplying science to suit those ends. hence inadvertently making science a sort of Cult for themselves

is that more or less accurate?

you also seem to be saying that...

• a tenant of the scientific method is inductive reasoning, by whose logic consciousness is to remain metaphysically defined
• quantum mechanics and general relativity cannot explain consciousness
• consciousness cannot be created via software, transistors and/or neurons

 

[Architect]

Well this was already known before GI. Every logical system starts with axioms. You can't start without metaphysics.

It wasn't proven until Goedel and was a convention, and ... I forget who it was at the moment, Whitehead, Principa Mathmatica? At any rate there was an effort to definitely lay out the sum of mathematics as a closed proof system - the 'uber theory' as you mention.

I think GI says that's impossible to have a closed system. Every system possible will always be contigent.

My memory from studying it is that he proved that arithmetic must rely on a set of unprovable assumptions. This is the most simple mathematical theory, therefore all theory must rest on some assumptions.

If we apply the law of induction (one axiom from the SM) we must keep thinking consciousness as metaphysical.

SM? Anyhow I work in AI and there's no a-priori reason for these ideas. It's just philosophy and ideology at this point.

New atheism (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens, the "Four Horsemen") promotes scientism.

Yes and I think that's cracked. But Hitchens was less so in that department.

 

[John_Mann]

So I had to look up scientism...

hmm, if i've got your view down correctly you're saying that

The use of science to try to explain consciousness = Scientism. Because it's over-reliance on a purely empirical explanation to try and explain something outside of its domain.

Not by trying to explain the metaphysical mechanisms like MBTI (a barely scientific attempt) for instance.

But scientism says that the very causality of consciousness is physical. That's the leap of faith from scientism.

TS proponents and new-atheists are just trying to get their own version of Nerd Heaven, misapplying science to suit those ends. hence inadvertently making science a sort of Cult for themselves

Exactly.

A tenant of the scientific method is inductive reasoning, by whose logic consciousness is to remain metaphysically defined

It's causality at least. Because inductive reasoning is "if before and if nothing opposing then after same as before" (sun will rise tomorrow like yesterday).

There's no evidence to change the metaphysical premise from the base of SMS (scientific method).

Quantum mechanics and general relativity cannot explain consciousness.

I don't see how they could.

Consciousness cannot be created via software, transistors and/or neurons

There's no scientific evidence to support any idea about this hypothesis.

Truth must be said that some singularitans recognize this hard problem of consciousness and say that a strong AI doesn't need to be conscious.

But if someone says that consciousness can be created through the SM then that's scientism.

What surprises me is the wide spread belief in scientism. And the mistake to view science as scientism. Almost all "celebrity" scientists promotes scientism.

Scientism is used to justify new atheism too.

At least the 19th century atheism was honest by recognizing the atheism was a starting point and the justification was only a joyful sensation (gay science) coming from the very axiom (God is dead).

 

[John_Mann]

Yes and I think that's Cracked.

Me too.

But Hitchens was less so in that department.

Yes. Dennett and Harris are totally radical because they say consciousness does not exist at all (eliminative materialism).

 

[Cognisant]

So if consciousness isn't physical what's your explanation for inebriation, or hallucinogens, or psychiatric disorders that have been proven to be due to chemical imbalances in the brain or electrical brain stimulation?

Seems to me there's a wealth of reasons to think consciousness is a non-metaphysical process.

Edit: And lobotomies, and Phineas Gage whose personality changed after a railroad spike embedded itself in his head.

 

[John_Mann]

Correlation does not imply causation.

You can alter the reception of a radio device by altering it but the broadcasting will not be affected.

 

[JR_IsP]

Look, the nature of consciousness, by itself, it's a good debate, but when you mix that with this anti Scientific Method thread, you're going nowhere.

For people learn something, they must forget their prejudices and preconceived ideas. Or at least try to make them not influence in the final result.

Unlikely. There's a camp of anti strong AI proponents who make an appeal to authority, basically by saying it requires QM or some such nonsense. Basically they're saying "I don't understand it so it must be impossible to understand". This sounds like a version of that.

I think this thread is something like this. QM + GR = Consciousness theory? What? This thread have becomed a thread of someone who may be happy in the Dark Ages, before the dawn of science, and who tries to convince people for joining him.

What surprises me is the wide spread belief in scientism. And the mistake to view science as scientism. Almost all "celebrity" scientists promotes scientism.

Scientism is used to justify new atheism too.

At least the 19th century atheism was honest by recognizing the atheism was a starting point and the justification was only a joyful sensation (gay science) coming from the very axiom (God is dead).

Dude, what is this? Atheism "honest by recognizing it was a starting point and the justification was only a joyful sensation"? I'm not atheist, I'm more agnostic, but this hurts my eyes.

The famous quote "God is dead", don't really means that an actual death of the christian God has happened, instead, he explains how in the western world mankind have followed the "God rules" to maintain morality for centuries, and how with the rise of atheism, morality may be replaced by a strong nihilism.

The very scientific method is built upon philosophy. Scientifc method is built upon several axioms. Axioms are metaphysical.

Scientism is wrong because is contradictory.

Axioms are metaphysical? Axioms are logical. And logic is what the Scientific follows.

I hate debating with closed-minded people. Because that's no debate, it's some political crap, like the presidential debates, those are no debates.

If you think that consciousness cannot be physical and that scientsim is a new kind of cult, good for you. But don't try to convince people of it, it's a nonsense.

 

[John_Mann]

Axioms are metaphysical?

Of course. Taken to be true through pure faith.

And axioms are only produced and accepted by consciousness.

So consciousness is metaphysical since the start of any logical argument/system.

 

[JR_IsP]

Disagree. Computers can also accept axioms, like the HTML code of this page, for example.

And axioms are only taken to be true until somebody proofs they're wrong. Until the XVI century, people thought that Earth was Flat (even when some Greeks already proof it was round), and that was an axiom. So that guy called Magellan started the trip and when he (actually he died, but the expedition continued) arrived, the axiom was proof to be wrong.

If someone invented a better group of axioms for the Scientific Method, we'd use them. But... the Scientific Method was inveneted by Galileo over 500 years ago... and if nobody have proof they are wrong, it's because they are true.

Or at least so far.

 

[John_Mann]

Disagree. Computers can also accept axioms, like the HTML code of this page, for example.

And axioms are only taken to be true until somebody proofs they're wrong. Until the XVI century, people thought that Earth was Flat (even when some Greeks already proof it was round), and that was an axiom. So that guy called Magellan started the trip and when he (actually he died, but the expedition continued) arrived, the axiom was proof to be wrong.

If someone invented a better group of axioms for the Scientific Method, we'd use them. But... the Scientific Method was inveneted by Galileo over 500 years ago... and if nobody have proof they are wrong, it's because they are true.

Or at least so far.

That's an example of a follower of scientism.

 

[Black Rose]

meta - physical

In the use of the term meta, it refers to a higher order understanding. For instance metacognition is thinking about thinking. Metaphysics is about the higher order understanding of physics. Consciousness is above physics in the way I am above a rock in cognition. Layers of meta-understandings include lower layers. The meta in metaphysical is simply a layer above physics but also include base reality of the physical layer. In psychology metacognition is a layer above the Concrete operational stage. This does not mean the lower stages don't exist, they are necessary for higher stages. Consciousness is a layer above physics but also includes physics the way software resides in hardware. Science is not necessarily a layer above physics so to say consciousness is explained by physics could be just a way of saying consciousness is not a layer above physics. So to use the term / the word (meta) is just to say layers exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget's_theory_of_cognitive_development

 

[Seteleechete]

{Science can explain how conciousness is created and why it works how it does. It can also almost certainly be used to replicate it for things like AI. It does not however invalidate(in our view) the idea of being(specifically your own, since you can only know your own mind for certain).

Scientifically wouldn't your being/agency/perception be nothing but an illusion that you precieve because of your brain? Yet because you precieve it, it exists as your precieved reality nonetheless.

How this works is a question science can't necessarily answer, but why it works like that(or the cause) is probably a question science can answer. Simply put science should be able to materialistically(that's the word right?) be able to explain conciousness.}

 

[JR_IsP]

What are you trying to do with this thread? Convince everyone that consciousness is not physical?

Until no theories are shown, or experiments made, we just can't state anything. If you say that consciousness is not physical because you say so, you may be wrong, or maybe not. The point is to be accurate, to know what consciousness is and how it works.

In theory, if I state that consciousness is physical, I may also be wrong, because I say so is no valid argument. But a skeptical approach is not only valid, but also desirable.

 

[Cognisant]

Correlation does not imply causation.

You can alter the reception of a radio device by altering it but the broadcasting will not be affected.

That's absolute bullshit, the phrase "correlation does not imply causation" is referring to coincidental data, like turning the kettle on and the song on the radio changes, you can turn the kettle on and off all day and although the coincidence may occur again more often it will not because you cannot cause the song to change by fucking with the kettle.

In your example you are causing the station to change and sure the data may be coming from elsewhere but that hasn't changed how the radio works. Now you're saying the mind is being broadcast from somewhere outside the brain, but from where, and why, and what if any evidence do you have for this?

I need to go to work but I'm not done yet.

 

[John_Mann]

What are you trying to do with this thread? Convince everyone that consciousness is not physical?

Until no theories are shown, or experiments made, we just can't state anything. If you say that consciousness is not physical because you say so, you may be wrong, or maybe not. The point is to be accurate, to know what consciousness is and how it works.

In theory, if I state that consciousness is physical, I may also be wrong, because I say so is no valid argument. But a skeptical approach is not only valid, but also desirable.

Consciousness is the only thing that can produce metaphysical elements (like axioms) and work with them.

So the default must be: "consciousness is metaphysical". Remember the Law of Induction from the very scientific method.

The only way to change this view is creating a consciousness from scratch.

I really doubt this is possible.

 

[Seteleechete]

The only way to change this view is creating a consciousness from scratch.

[Well... ↓ ]

 

[Cognisant]

Saying the mind is like a radio station… ok let’s suppose it is, what does that change exactly?

All phenomena is natural, if it exists and it’s happening it’s real and if it’s real it’s not supernatural because it works and it has to work somehow because if it doesn’t work somehow then how could it happen?

If the mind is like a radio station the brain receives input from (and transmits to) that would be a revolutionary discovery but it would still be happening, still real, still a mechanism we can study, reduce, simulate and replicate.

Unless you’re saying the mind/brain is utterly unreplicable because it’s… I dunno, magic?

 

[Black Rose]

https://youtu.be/yzFW4-dvFDA

 

[Seteleechete]

[You know, we had a similar argument with an occultist not long ago. We are a bit interested in occult practices(take things like astral projection for example, thoughtform interaction, using symbolics to manipulate the brain, using mantras as a device to get stuff done.)

Of course we aren't interested in all the magical mumbo-jumbo but these "occult" practices seemingly work so we are more than happy to steal them and give them psychological explanations. Of course the occultist found our logic ridiculous - if it's magic and it works... It's not magic. XD]

 

[John_Mann]

Saying the mind is like a radio station… ok let’s suppose it is, what does that change exactly?

The source of your knowledge about your consciousness.

If consciousness is physical we are in a very contradictory worldview.

If consciousness is metaphysical we have to consider the implications involved like immortality.

All phenomena is natural,

How do you know that? This is the very motto of scientism. Nowhere in the scientific method you will find such axiom.

If all phenomena is natural so try to trace down to other species the sense of justice or infinity for instance.

if it exists and it’s happening it’s real and if it’s real it’s not supernatural

Why?


because it works and it has to work somehow because if it doesn’t work somehow then how could it happen?

Really?

If the mind is like a radio station the brain receives input from (and transmits to) that would be a revolutionary discovery but it would still be happening, still real, still a mechanism we can study, reduce, simulate and replicate.

If consciousness is metaphysical so you can't apply the scientific method to it because the very scientific method is built to cope with the physical world.

It's just like someone comb its hair with a chainsaw.

Unless you’re saying the mind/brain is utterly unreplicable because it’s… I dunno, magic?[/QUOTE]

Yes, a kind of magic.

 

[John_Mann]

Saying the mind is like a radio station… ok let’s suppose it is, what does that change exactly?

It's fundamental to choose the source of our knowledge about consciousness.

If consciousness is physical then we are in a very contradictory worldview (because we accept metaphysical axioms to cope with the physical world).

If consciousness is metaphysical then we have to consider the logical implications involved like immortality.

https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2006-7/20208/plato-immortality.html

All phenomena is natural,

Do you mean by natural as physical?

How do you know that?

Can you test ALL phenomena in a vial? How did you get to known all phenomena in the universe?

Can't you see this is a metaphysical claim?

This is the very motto of scientism. Nowhere in the scientific method you will find such axiom.

If all phenomena is physical so try to trace down to other species the sense of justice or infinity in humans for instance.

if it exists and it’s happening it’s real and if it’s real it’s not supernatural

Why?

because it works and it has to work somehow because if it doesn’t work somehow then how could it happen?

Really? It works because it works. Can you be more circular than this?

If the mind is like a radio station the brain receives input from (and transmits to) that would be a revolutionary discovery but it would still be happening, still real, still a mechanism we can study, reduce, simulate and replicate.

If consciousness is metaphysical so you can't apply the scientific method to it because the very scientific method is built to cope with the physical world.

It's just like someone trying to comb its hair with a chainsaw.

Unless you’re saying the mind/brain is utterly unreplicable because it’s… I dunno, magic?

Yes, a kind of magic.

 

[JR_IsP]

Supernatural doesn't exist. "Supernatural" things are things not fully understood by science, doesn't mean that "supernatural things" break laws of Physics.

And consciousness is not metaphysical.
It's not magic.
Even if there's something outside our heads, it won't be metaphysical.

It's physical and real. Just because we don't know exactly how something happens doesn't means that it happens beyond the laws of physics.

For thousands of years we thought that lightnings were product of the Gods rage, because we didn't know them. Now we know they're product of electrical charges of storm clouds.

I know that someday, maybe not that far away, we'd understand, and explain, by physical laws, how consciousness works.

 

[John_Mann]

Supernatural doesn't exist. "Supernatural" things are things not fully understood by science, doesn't mean that "supernatural things" break laws of Physics.

And consciousness is not metaphysical.
It's not magic.
Even if there's something outside our heads, it won't be metaphysical.

It's physical and real. Just because we don't know exactly how something happens doesn't means that it happens beyond the laws of physics.

For thousands of years we thought that lightnings were product of the Gods rage, because we didn't know them. Now we know they're product of electrical charges of storm clouds.

I know that someday, maybe not that far away, we'd understand, and explain, by physical laws, how consciousness works.

Pure scientism.

 

[JR_IsP]

Science is the basis of our society. Without it, we'll still be in the Dark Ages.

It reminds me of a quote (I can't remember from who)

If it is possible, it's made. If not, it will.

 

[Seteleechete]

[That's fine, non-individualistic morals don't exist either ^.^. It's all inclinations based on what perspective you are using.]

conciousness is metaphysical

[What do you mean by that anyway? >.>]

[Also, how does conciousness being metaphysical imply that it has to lead to some other conclusions/metaphysical theories being true?(like in regards to morality). That I am conscious is a necessary axiom since it's self-evident by my own conciousness, but why does it have to imply any reasoning beyond that?]

[And again even if conciousness itself is beyond the grasp of science the steps to materialistically explain its functions and therefore study and replicate the phenomenons leading to it aren't. You can create a conscious entity.]

 

[John_Mann]

You can create a conscious entity.]

So show me.

My point is nobody can create a conscious entity.

 

[John_Mann]

Science is the basis of our society. Without it, we'll still be in the Dark Ages.

It reminds me of a quote (I can't remember from who)

Science was created by Abrahamic culture.

No other culture would bring the scientific method because all pagans believed matter is a god (Chaos) or a limb of God. You don't put God in a vial but you worship God and that's what all pagans were (and still) doing since the dawn of man.

Only the Abrahamic culture considered matter or physical world as being not God.

It's not by chance the scientific method was invented in the Abrahamic culture (especially Christianity).

 

[JR_IsP]

Dude, just because nobody has done one yet, doesn't mean that nobody will ever create one.

 

[JR_IsP]

Science was created by Abrahamic culture.

No other culture would bring the scientific method because all pagans believed matter is a god (Chaos) or a limb of God. You don't put God in a vial but you worship God and that's what all pagans were (and still) doing since the dawn of man.

Only the Abrahamic culture considered matter or physical world as being not God.

It's not by chance the scientific method was invented in the Abrahamic culture (especially Christianity).

WHAT IS THIS????????????? Science as we know started in the Ancient Greece, by people like Democritus, Thales, Pythagoras.

And the scientific method that we use today was invented by Galileo.

Oh... and yes... greeks were "pagans"

 

[Seteleechete]

So show me.

My point is nobody can create a conscious entity.

[Sure, http://tulpa.info/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Tulpas/wiki/guides.
Here you go. ]

 

[Kuu]

Wow, so many sloppy mixing of terms

Modern science as we know it is fundamentally materialist and only attempts to investigate that which can actually be reliably tested through its scientific method. It does not concern itself with metaphysics so far as said metaphysics deals in presumed "super-natural" phenomena that cannot be reliably tested. It naturally follows that scientists view consciousness as an emergent phenomenon of complex natural physical systems.

Scientism, as in, the trusting in science (or science-sounding) as a source of knowledge, is certainly a strong aspect of contemporary societies. It seems to be used often in a negative connotation, that some people trust blindly in "science" or a presumed scientific dogmatism, which is ironically un-scientific. Other people just are extremely disconnected from what science actually is and just like to turn science into a new god to worship or to justify their point of view (regardless of what the scientific consensus or lack thereof is on the matter).

IIRC the whole point of talking about singularities was that the rate of change in technology is predicted to increase in such a manner that it would *seem* to approach infinity, not in an absolute universal sense, but from our current perspective, and thus after a certain period, almost incomprehensible and extremely hard to predict. Some people that adhere to pathological scientism certainly have taken that concept to a ridiculous utopias of "the nerd rapture", but the idea of a technological singularity does not inherently imply that such changes will be good or bad (which is then more a matter of philosophy than science), merely that such a trend is observable and seemingly inevitable.

The matter of conciousness is only peripheral. Technological singularity is generally thought to involve the creation of self-modifying machines and strong AI as one of its most powerful drivers... but it makes no real comment at all about whether there is a ghost in the shell. It is functionally irrelevant to the concept of singularity whether machines can or can't be conscious, so long as they are capable enough to do the job of advancing technology faster.

As a transhumanist I think the concept of a technological singularity (and strong AI) to be quite plausible but not an inevitability, and it actually bothers me that thoughtless 'scientism' takes the positive view of it nearly as a universal given. Technology just is, and it is us who choose what to do with it. It is ultimately a problem of politics if we improve our condition or not. Ignorance, selfishness and violence are as much the scientism-ist problem as the luddites and the supernaturalists.

 

[John_Mann]

It does not concern itself with metaphysics so far as said metaphysics deals in presumed "super-natural" phenomena that cannot be reliably tested.

Of course science it's not concerned with metaphysics, that's why scientism is BS.

But science is built upon metaphysics.

It naturally follows that scientists view consciousness as an emergent phenomenon of complex natural physical systems.

I don't know how this following can be a natural view.

If you know the scientific method is built upon metaphysics and human consciousness is the creator of the scientific method. Why consider consciousness as physical? It's very contradictory.

Like I said there are some proponents of technological singularity who are aware of this paradox and claim the strong AI doesn't have to be conscious.

 

[Black Rose]

If you know the scientific method is built upon metaphysics and human consciousness is the creator of the scientific method. Why consider consciousness as physical? It's very contradictory.

Consciousness is a layer above the physical because like I said (meta) means "layer". The physical is the starting point because most people would agree that without a body it is hard to become conscious. I have been studying A.I. since I was 12 and I understand that the mind uses the body to think. Thinking is a cybernetic process of information allocation. I believe that A.I. can build models of people and a model of itself based on the principles of information processing. Intelligence as I understand it boils down to control theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_theory

 

[Auburn]

@John_Mann - I think your definition of metaphysics is what's really confusing things here. Would you consider debating the proper definition of metaphysics?

For example, would you say basic math is metaphysics?
Like, is "4 x 3 = 12" metaphysical?

And if so, what's the point of calling anything metaphysical when even the most fundamental knowledge structures humans build rely to some degree on conjecture or assumption. That "assumption" is way different from metaphysics.

• Metaphysical: implies a sort of acausality
• Metaphysical: implies things whose nature transcends the natural world
• Metaphysical: implies soul/spirit/god/etc

Whereas... math is the best tool we have to stringently structure a systemic understanding of that causality. The fact that, as Architect noted, it's ultimately not self-consistently provable, is rather a limitation of being a finite being -- but it is not at all a proposition for the belief in the above listed metaphysical properties. It is in fact the opposite; an attempt to, as much as possible, be removed from those sort of acausal implications to reality.

So then, if we can appreciate mathematics to be a (non-metaphysical) exercise in human ingenuity; a practical "solution" to the problem of human ignorance and its quest for knowledge..... then mathematical axioms and theorems can be seen --- despite their ultimately supposition-restricted premises --- as the most far removed from metaphysics that any human endeavor has gotten.

And indeed, if any activity we do, as superstitious conjecturing animals, can be exempt from falling into the category of metaphysics, it is this very act.

 

[John_Mann]

@John_Mann - I think your definition of metaphysics is what's really confusing things here. Would you consider debating the proper definition of metaphysics?

Basically I'm talking about metaphysics as ontology. And intuition as metaphysical perception. And things perceived by intuition as metaphysical entities. Being intuition a sense then which physical organ is responsible for the perception of intuition? And what exactly intuition perceives? Things like the undefined terms of geometry (point, line and plane), infinity, perfection, evil, justice, etc.. Things that doesn't exist anywhere in the physical world. And things perceived through intuition seems to be immutable and universally accessible among conscious beings.

The very nature of consciousness can't be physical. Because our most fundamental approach to the physical world starts in consciousness itself through intuition (axioms). You can't even have an object without a subject.

If some say the brain is the cause of consciousness so we could easily identify all our mental features in other animals including all stages of evolution of the consciousness like we can do with our knees for instance.

Our minds are the top in animal kingdom but our brains don't. Why animals with super brains like dolphins and whales don't have a similar or better minds than us? They were always isolated from humans, never existed some evolutionary pressure as "there can be only one" between them and us. They even have the advantage of living in a much better protein rich environment.

 

[Cognisant]

Asking for only answers you'll agree with because you're skeptical of all but your subjective beliefs, nothing anyone can say will breach that bastion of willful ignorance.

I'm done here.

 

[Black Rose]

Basically I'm talking about metaphysics as ontology. And intuition as metaphysical perception.

Why do you need a dualism for that?
Why can't the physical and metaphysical reside in the same ontology?

What is physicality anyway?
Ontology means existence, physicality is synonomus with all existence.

Intuition is just a layer of physicality that can drive axioms by a closed loop structure.
Loops create the metaphysical perceptions and that means loops are physical intuitions.

 

[John_Mann]

Why do you need a dualism for that?

Because it's necessary. Even in the scientific method there's a duality between what are the basic axioms and the following results derived from them.

Why can't the physical and metaphysical reside in the same ontology?

They don't have the same nature but have the same source.

What is physicality anyway?

If we consider quantum mechanics it's almost a metaphysical property too. Matter is probability popping in and out from existence.

Ontology means existence, physicality is synonomus with all existence.

How can you claim that?

How sense of justice is physical?

Intuition is just a layer of physicality that can drive axioms by a closed loop structure.
Loops create the metaphysical perceptions and that means loops are physical intuitions.

Do you mean layer as in levels of programming languages?

If so we can reduce any high level language to machine level (painful task but entirely possible).

Neurons work very similar to machine language but we can't reduce our high level language to neurons. Just imagine we trying to trace down our sense of infinity to neurons! We even don't know how or where to start it!

 

[Black Rose]

Because it's necessary. Even in the scientific method there's a duality between what are the basic axioms and the following results derived from them.

Any axiom that is not grounded in the physical has no relation to reality.
That is how we know if it is true or false.
Because it can be tested.

They don't have the same nature but have the same source.

What is the source of both the physical and metaphysical?

If we consider quantum mechanics it's almost a metaphysical property too. Matter is probability popping in and out from existence.

Does this not mean that the dualism does not exist?

If everything is metaphysical why not just say: metaphysical = quantum physical.

How can you claim that?

How sense of justice is physical?

The feeling of justice is in the body, when acts happen that feel wrong the body tells you. Any action you feel is wrong, is a pattern of action after all. Which means justice is sensed by the actions we see as motion of bodies doing what they should not be doing because should and should not are feelings in the body. We know how thing should be by the motions bodies act out.

Do you mean layer as in levels of programming languages?

If so we can reduce any high level language to machine level (painful task but entirely possible).

Neurons work very similar to machine language but we can't reduce our high level language to neurons. Just imagine we trying to trace down our sense of infinity to neurons! We even don't know how or where to start it!

To understand infinity as finite being we need only extrapolate the loops we reside in, to a never ending cycle. I know time is never ending because my cycles inside me tell me that closure is impossible. If closer cannot be met then infinity is an open system that is open beyond my encapsulation. I encounter new information all the time and this is proof of a reality beyond my awareness. Reality that is beyond you exists because you encounter new information you never had before.

Your whole notion of metaphysical comes from the understanding that there is a reality exists beyond your existence. Physicality = all reality even the reality outside of you because again: metaphysical = quantum physical.