This is many segways from the Markian Messianic Secret etc..  If people want to discuss consciousness (on a theology blog!), then I think we need to start a new topic! 

godspell said
My only response to that is you can go to any online hangout for atheists who like to think they understand science (but don’t), suggest this, and they might or might not agree, but nobody calls you a religious nut, even though there is zero objective evidence for any of it.  It’s just an idea.  Maybe pet rocks actually get sad if you don’t talk to them? 

Consciousness as we mainly define it is created by biological nervous systems.  We can choose to define it differently, but that’s our overly complex nervous systems fooling around to pass the time, not observed reality.  We play with ideas, which is to say UNreality, to avoid the implacability of reality (and our own deaths) and that’s part of where religion comes from.  But without theistic religion, we do it just about as much.  We can’t stop doing it.  No human being has ever lived entirely in objective reality.  I could recommend the Parker novels by Richard Stark (aka Donald E. Westlake) if you want to see a description of what that might be like.  WAY better writer than Arthur C. Clarke.  (Mystery attracts much better prose smiths than SF, as a general rule.)  

Animal consciousness doesn’t do this, because animal brains are geared towards simpler ends, like living another day (though they like to enjoy themselves too).    Human brains have reached a level of complexity that makes mere survival unsatisfactory–and also makes us constantly aware of our mortality.  We’re the only animal that tells stories, knowing as we tell them that they didn’t really happen, but at the same time often finding them more real to us than actual events.  We blur the line between real and unreal.  All of us do this.  Without exception.  (Except Parker, but I’m not convinced he’s human.)  

You really do have something to say about everthing don’t you?  But then again, I can talk!  I’m not going to get drawn into a discussion about consciousness here 🙂

Neurotheologian said

You really do have something to say about everthing don’t you?  But then again, I can talk!  I’m not going to get drawn into a discussion about consciousness here 🙂  

Me again However, unlike your theology, I tend to agree with your philosphical obervations ie re animal consciousness.  As for obervations on philophers ie  Plato, you do form highly specultaive judgmental opnions of people on minimal evidence

Robert said

Neurotheologian said

Robert said
What evidence of the supernatural are you speaking of?   

1. Consciousness – the fact that there is experience / mind at all (this is the biggest of all the elephants in the room and my favourite subject ).  I would inlclude under consciousness: sensation & perception from (all 5 senses especially touch and vision), logical thought, conception, all shades emotion (especially pain and pleasure of various types), a sense of morality and conscience, a sense of justice, a sense of beauty and a sense of free will (which I could argue elsewhere is real and not illusory).  Human consciousness, of course, is what makes us people. The fact that any of this exists, although clearly dependent, in every aspect, on brain function, cannot be explained by physical science (ie by ‘natural’ causes).  Consciousness is therefore supernatural until proved otherwise (which I don’t believe it ever will).  This is what the book I am writing will be principally about. …

Neurotheologian, I’m coming back to this aspect of the discussion for very coincidental reasons. I’ve been listening to the the last two installments of Arthur C. Clarke’s 2001 Space Odyssey books. Are you familiar with the series? I used to be a fan of science fiction as a boy and decided to listen to these books as nostalgia and wondering how the story progressed beyond the 2010 movie. 

Anyway, without giving away any spoilers, a distinction is made there between intelligence and consciousness. You seem above to make intelligence only one aspect of consciousness. What do you think of artificial intelligence? The android Data and The Doctor in the Star Trek series also takes up the question of whether their forms of artificial intelligence achieved some form of consciousness or personhood. Can you please say more about how you understand some of these issues?  

Dear Robert, I realise I havent answered your question which was very reasonable and shouldn’t start a massive debate (hopefully) – unless you are setting a trap but I dont think you are, so here goes.  Funnily enough, I recently read the book 2001 space Odyssey, because I plan to quote the Kubrick film in one of my chapters and wanted to try and understand the end of the film better.  Also, this whole area of whether robots could become conscious is very topical in both the general media and amongst academics in philsophy of mind.  My 2 favourite scenes from the film which I am referecning in my book both relate to this question of AC: the disconnection of Hal ** you do not have permission to see this link ** and the interview of Hal and the crew before the mission .  The idea of computer consciosness is often referred to as strong AI, but I prefer ‘AC’.  In answer to your question, the way I personally understand these issues is that ‘intelligence’ refers to a whole series of cogntive capacities (the importance of each being debated by the psychologists) and included both conscious and uncosncious cognitive capacities.  Intelligence is almost certainly dependent on brain structure at the micrsoscopic level and highly genenetically detemined with addtional environmental infleunces such as birth trauma etc.  Conscousness is a property that most people beleive is shared by both highly inteligent humans and by much less intelligent animals possibly even down to very simple organisms which noneone would describe as intelligent.  As you know, panpsychists even beleive that consciousness in some prototypical form is shared by inanimate matter.  I don’t beleive this and I also don’t beleive that consciousness is a function of intelligence or even a function of complexity or some other property of information processing (cf Tonpnni’s Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness). I’m very old fashioned in this, even ancient!, in that I believe (on the basis of some evidence, Godspell) that consciousness requires life.  Ie I’m a bit of a vitalist .  Hope that answers your question.  Cheers Angus

I am not going to reply to any more questions on consciousness on this thread 🙂

However, for what it is worth, when I have time, I am going to give a summary of my amateur thoughts on how the Markian Messsianic Secret & The Johanine Messianic Revelation are compatible (forgive me Robert for Hijacking the the Markain literary motif terminology )

Stephen said
However, the Turing test has been used to argue that if a computer passes the turing test then it is conscious. 

Bu that’s just the point.  If an AI passes the Turing test then on what basis can you claim that it is not conscious that doesn’t also apply to your fellow humans?  

Hi Stephen, sorry to be pedantic, but the point is not that a computer which passes a highly subjective and unclearly defined Turing test is conscious; the point is just that you may not logically be able to prove that it isn’t.  The distinction is between truth and provable truth.  There is a world difference between not being able to prove that a computer is conscious and the computer actually being conscious.  The basis on which I reject the possibility of AC is a longer argument which will be in my book 🙂