Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → News and Events → UK news and issues → Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Yesterday at 07:58 AM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
November 15, 2024, 06:36 AM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 13, 2024, 05:18 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 04, 2024, 03:51 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM
New Britain
October 30, 2024, 08:34 PM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
October 22, 2024, 09:05 PM
Tariq Ramadan Accused of ...
September 11, 2024, 01:37 PM
France Muslims were in d...
September 05, 2024, 03:21 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe

 (Read 29499 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 6 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #60 - September 02, 2010, 04:53 PM
    Quote from: z10 on September 02, 2010, 04:50 PM
    That is what my reply above was addessed to. Do you think the concept of matter that we have is sufficient to explain experience?


    I think language is sufficient to explain experience Smiley
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #61 - September 02, 2010, 04:57 PM
    I'm sorry, but you're going to have to expand on that, I don't quite understand what you mean  Smiley
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #62 - September 02, 2010, 05:00 PM
    @z10 : do the terms phenomenal and noumenal ring a bell?
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #63 - September 02, 2010, 05:01 PM
    yes they do, but I don't think they are quite applicable here. My point is simply this: there is a reality that we all live in, this reality has a basic ontology that would explain the reason for everything in it - is the ontology described by a strict physicalist definition of matter sufficient to describe experience?
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #64 - September 02, 2010, 05:03 PM
    I'm not sure what you mean by explaining experience. Do you mean to describe our individual experiences? Or theorise why and how we came to be here, experiencing things? Or something else?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #65 - September 02, 2010, 05:15 PM
    How is it, that supposed particles in random collisions can give rise to perception? Why is it that your brain processes don't go on in the dark? For instance, say you see the colour red. There is a certain wavelength of photon that enters your eyes and it is registered by your brain. Now why do you see it as red? It's certainly not because of the photon's wavelength, that has nothing to do with the subjective quality of the colour, the wavelength is only a number after all. The experience of seeing the colour red must be explained as a quality and not a quantity and the physicalist idea of matter can only study quantities and so it cannot, in principle, explain the subjective quality.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #66 - September 02, 2010, 05:17 PM
    Quote from: z10 on September 02, 2010, 05:01 PM
    yes they do, but I don't think they are quite applicable here. My point is simply this: there is a reality that we all live in, this reality has a basic ontology that would explain the reason for everything in it - is the ontology described by a strict physicalist definition of matter sufficient to describe experience?


    you're asking if consciouness can be explained with a purely physicalist concept of matter isn't it. i don't know the answer. some recent advances in quantum mechanics do point to pan-psychism (this is something i don't understand but relaying second hand via a physicist friend of mine).

    however, i tend to think of consciounes as emergent from matter and i think neuroscience will deliver the mechanics someday.
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #67 - September 02, 2010, 05:19 PM
    Yes, that's what I'm asking. I personally think the panpsychist model is the best explanation we have currently and all emergent models will have the same problems.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #68 - September 02, 2010, 05:19 PM
    Quote from: z10 on September 02, 2010, 05:15 PM
    How is it, that supposed particles in random collisions can give rise to perception? Why is it that your brain processes don't go on in the dark? For instance, say you see the colour red. There is a certain wavelength of photon that enters your eyes and it is registered by your brain. Now why do you see it as red? It's certainly not because of the photon's wavelength, that has nothing to do with the subjective quality of the colour, the wavelength is only a number after all. The experience of seeing the colour red must be explained as a quality and not a quantity and the physicalist idea of matter can only study quantities and so it cannot, in principle, explain the subjective quality.

    no actually. if we understand the complete neural circutry that enables us to say  'i see red' and that  circuitry is common to all humans, then experience of red is no longer a mystery. we're going to get to this point in the next few decades.

    in fact, we're going to have to understand how mechanics of language, internal representation of colours, projection ability (we can all imagine red right) etc work to get to how "i see red" happens.

    its a tough task but we are pretty much sure these mechanisms are common to humans.
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #69 - September 02, 2010, 05:22 PM
    Quote from: z10 on September 02, 2010, 05:19 PM
    Yes, that's what I'm asking. I personally think the panpsychist model is the best explanation we have currently and all emergent models will have the same problems.


    what are the problems that all emergent models must necessarily hit?
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #70 - September 02, 2010, 05:25 PM
    Perhaps I can put it in a simpler way:

    1. Experience is a real existent.
    2. Experience is either an emergent property of inert matter as understood by physics or experience is a fundamental part of ontology.
    3. All emergent models that can ever be conceived of in a physicalist model will always attempt to explain experience in a quantitative manner.
    4. Experience is not quantitative, experience is qualitative.
    5. Emergent models, therefore, in principle, cannot explain experience completely.
    therefore,
    6. Experience is a fundamental part of reality and not just the outcome of random collisions between inert pieces of matter.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #71 - September 02, 2010, 05:26 PM
    the quantitative , qualitative duality of your model is fallacious.

    this is a circular argument. this duality assumes that physical matter behaviour and consciouness can have no causal link. and then you use this duality to prove the same thing back.
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #72 - September 02, 2010, 05:30 PM
    Quote from: z10 on September 02, 2010, 05:15 PM
    How is it, that supposed particles in random collisions can give rise to perception? Why is it that your brain processes don't go on in the dark? For instance, say you see the colour red. There is a certain wavelength of photon that enters your eyes and it is registered by your brain. Now why do you see it as red? It's certainly not because of the photon's wavelength, that has nothing to do with the subjective quality of the colour, the wavelength is only a number after all. The experience of seeing the colour red must be explained as a quality and not a quantity and the physicalist idea of matter can only study quantities and so it cannot, in principle, explain the subjective quality.


    Sorry, I don't do science jargon.

    I see something as red because my mother told me that a particular colour was called red. I have no idea how my brain interprets and separates the visual queues into distinct and recognisable tints and shades, but I know its something to do with light. To be honest, it doesn’t bother me that I don’t know. Red is a good enough description of red.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #73 - September 02, 2010, 05:41 PM
    Quote from: s12345 on September 02, 2010, 05:26 PM
    the quantitative , qualitative duality of your model is fallacious.

    this is a circular argument. this duality assumes that physical matter behaviour and consciouness can have no causal link. and then you use this duality to prove the same thing back.


    But, my friend, I didn't invent the difference.
    Let us put it another way. For x to be an emergent property of y, there must be something about y and y alone that is sufficient to explain x. Now take the example of a photon of light with a certain wavelength. Can we really say that if we could not see and somebody told us the wavelengths of a certain colour that we would be able to discern from the quantitative value only, the actual experience of seeing that colour?
    You cannot have emergence as brute because then it's just a miracle. Unless you can show completely how an experiential phenomena x can arise sufficiently from the supposed non-experiential phenomena y then emergence cannot work.
    And this is where the problem arises because to have a complete description of any experience you have to account for its quality and this is lacking from all emergent models.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #74 - September 02, 2010, 05:43 PM
    Message to z10 - can you please dumb down your posts in future so us thick folk can also understand them?
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #75 - September 02, 2010, 05:44 PM
    I'm sorry Islame, what part would you like me to explain? Smiley
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #76 - September 02, 2010, 05:48 PM
    thanks for asking but no worries, i think we've discussed it before anyhows
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #77 - September 02, 2010, 05:52 PM
    Quote from: z10 on September 02, 2010, 05:41 PM
    But, my friend, I didn't invent the difference.
    Let us put it another way. For x to be an emergent property of y, there must be something about y and y alone that is sufficient to explain x. Now take the example of a photon of light with a certain wavelength. Can we really say that if we could not see and somebody told us the wavelengths of a certain colour that we would be able to discern from the quantitative value only, the actual experience of seeing that colour?
    You cannot have emergence as brute because then it's just a miracle. Unless you can show completely how an experiential phenomena x can arise sufficiently from the supposed non-experiential phenomena y then emergence cannot work.
    And this is where the problem arises because to have a complete description of any experience you have to account for its quality and this is lacking from all emergent models.


    What i am saying is that the conclusion that no mechanical model will ever be able to sufficiently account for emergence of experience is unwarranted.

    as i told you before, modern neuroscience is in the process of finding out how awareness of 'red' works. its the hardest and most fundamental problem of neuroscience.

    the current hypothesis is that humans evolved the language area of the brain and the ability to be aware of 'red' simultaneously. the experience of red is going to be a pretty complicated neural phenomenon when we do figure it out. but we're several decades away from understanding how consciousness arises.

    also, think about simple things like anaesthesia induced unconsciouness. how much more evience do you need to see that the causality runs from chemical / electrical phenomenon in the brain to experience and not the other way around.
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #78 - September 02, 2010, 05:56 PM
    Quote from: s12345 on September 02, 2010, 05:52 PM
    What i am saying is that the conclusion that no mechanical model will ever be able to sufficiently account for emergence of experience is unwarranted.




    I think this is a valid point. Unless that mechanical model incorporates within it elements of experience itself, it will be too far removed to offer a complete explanation. But then, if it does incorporate those elements of experience we are back at panpsychism.
    Anyway, I think we should just agree to disagree here. Smiley
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #79 - September 02, 2010, 05:58 PM
    no we shouldn't Smiley the causality most certainly runs from physical phenomena to consciousness. we just don't understand how.
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #80 - September 02, 2010, 06:03 PM
    here you go. the master, vilayanur ramachanran on what makes human consciouness unique and different.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaVoiXbaVZU
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #81 - September 02, 2010, 06:04 PM
    Quote from: s12345 on September 02, 2010, 05:58 PM
    no we shouldn't Smiley the causality most certainly runs from physical phenomena to consciousness. we just don't understand how.

    Whats wrong with just saying the consciousness is a a combination of our sense i.e. seeing, touch, smell, hearing, memory, brain all working together.  

    Works for me, I dont need to wait for science to understand the nuts & bolts of the mechanisms?
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #82 - September 02, 2010, 06:05 PM
    hahaha, ok
    I agree that the causality does run from the physical to the experiential. However, it seems to me that it would be a lot easier (and correct) to modify the conception of the physical from being just one of numerical difference to one that includes experience, than it would be to try and somehow shoehorn experience into an explanation that cannot fully grasp it.

    Say for instance that neuroscience does explain completely how an experience works. It can tell you exactly how a wavelength is converted into a visual format in our brains. How would the explanation go? Presumably it would state that certain physical phenomena P give rise to certain mental phenomena M with a somewhat law-like consistency. Now, given the current position about P, there is nothing about P that has experience, P is a completely non-experiential phenomena. However, from this non-experiential arises experience. What is it about P that makes experience arise? You cannot point to our current example about P and M because that's just a correlation and we want an explanation. What you need is something within the idea of P itself that can explain M. This is where I think problems will always arise. P is not sufficient to give a complete explanation of M.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #83 - September 02, 2010, 06:07 PM
    Quote from: z10 on September 02, 2010, 05:41 PM
    But, my friend, I didn't invent the difference.
    Let us put it another way. For x to be an emergent property of y, there must be something about y and y alone that is sufficient to explain x. Now take the example of a photon of light with a certain wavelength. Can we really say that if we could not see and somebody told us the wavelengths of a certain colour that we would be able to discern from the quantitative value only, the actual experience of seeing that colour?

    Fallacious example.

    Here is why: the property of "red" could be an emergent property of the system made of: photon + the eye + all the neurons of the brain that are fired when I see the color red.

    Now, we cannot run such experiment because no human has the "computational power" of running a simulation of a photon hitting an eye and signaling a cascade of a billion of neurons.

    So the answer is neither positive nor negative. It's just unknown.
    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #84 - September 02, 2010, 06:10 PM
    The "real" example should be: if I were able to run in my mind a simulation of a complete physical human brain in a virtual environment (like a chess master is able to "run" games of chess in his mere imagination), would I be able to "know" what the "virtual brain" feelings are like?
    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #85 - September 02, 2010, 06:12 PM
    @z10 : watch the vid. i know what you're saying but i think we'll have complete explanations of M.
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #86 - September 02, 2010, 06:14 PM
    another interesting simulation : does a perfect molecular level simulation of a brain running on a computer generate consciousness?
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #87 - September 02, 2010, 06:18 PM
    Quote from: s12345 on September 02, 2010, 06:14 PM
    another interesting simulation : does a perfect molecular level simulation of a brain running on a computer generate consciousness?

    Indeed.

    Or, even: is it actually possible to run a "perfect" simulation of any real object?

    We are not even sure if space is discrete or non-discrete.

    If space were not discrete then any 3+ particles in a limited space would form an infinite state machine ^_^
    Which means they could not be perfectly simulated by a finite state machine such as a computer.
    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #88 - September 02, 2010, 06:18 PM
    Quote from: IsLame on September 02, 2010, 06:04 PM
    Whats wrong with just saying the consciousness is a a combination of our sense i.e. seeing, touch, smell, hearing, memory, brain all working together.  

    Works for me, I dont need to wait for science to understand the nuts & bolts of the mechanisms?


    consciouness is a composite of not sensory pathways (the physical circuits) but of sensory qualia(the experiences through the senses) and a whole lot more. how qualia arise is an open problem in neuroscience.
  • Re: Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
     Reply #89 - September 02, 2010, 06:19 PM
    If space is non-discrete and one could arrange 3 particles in space, he could theoretically be able to encode any infinite amount of information in such a system... cause you could rearrange them so that the ratio of their distances is a particular real number that can be considered as an encoding of any given infinite string of numbers ;P
    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 6 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »