[cheryl wright]

Assume that the universe is deterministic, meaning that there is no free will and that humans are simply biological computers that make pre-determined, or at least probabilistic decisions. This thread is not a place to debate about whether or not the universe is deterministic, so please put your philosophical position on this issue aside.

Within these conditions, what is the purpose of consciousness? Please avoid religious discussions and other rule-breaking discussions, as it's easy to slip when talking about these kinds of things.

[Marine Arrègle]

42

[yermom]

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

[~Amy~]

Are you trying to [censored] with me? is that what this is?

:P


I wish I could day inb4first42 , curse you Hackworthy

[james tait]

Consciousness seems to have brought about the concept of purpose, which is a bit of a struggle for most animals to get their heads around, so to speak, especially the ones intelligent enough to be truly stupid.

There isn't one.

[BEl J]

Conciousness is just. We are but ants, continuing our way for no greater purpose. Fearless Hero is correct. Assuming the assumption of course.

[~Sylvia~]

Consciousness seems to have brought about the concept of purpose, which is a bit of a struggle for most animals to get their heads around, so to speak, especially the ones intelligent enough to be truly stupid.

There isn't one.

Purpose certainly does exist, subjectively and from a conscious being, such as yourself, assigning it value. Objective purpose may or may not exist, depending on your religious and/or philosophical beliefs, so I'll not go there. But either way there is at least some form of purpose.

[Milagros Osorio]

The only purpose of existence is to exist.

[D LOpez]

The only purpose of existence is to exist.

Sure, surviving and reproducing are the natural goals of all organisms. And you could say that they define success and therefore purpose. However, I can say that the purpose of my life is to enjoy it. Who said so? Me. The purposes that you, or I, or any other individual assign to things are very real. There isn't some natural objective "purpose" that the universe chose. Purpose is something that an observer may define.

[Jack Walker]

Assume that the universe is deterministic, meaning that there is no free will and that humans are simply biological computers that make pre-determined, or at least probabilistic decisions. This thread is not a place to debate about whether or not the universe is deterministic, so please put your philosophical position on this issue aside.

Within these conditions, what is the purpose of consciousness? Please avoid religious discussions and other rule-breaking discussions, as it's easy to slip when talking about these kinds of things.

do you mean consciousness in the context of being awake instead of sleeping (literally not metaphoricly); or do you mean sentient as to a living organism is to an inanimate object such as a rock; or do you mean as in consciousness that tells us as individuals what value based on good or bad our actions have.

The only purpose of existence is to exist.

ku. ku. ku. ku... you know something not many people realize jagar.

[Inol Wakhid]

do you mean consciousness in the context of being awake instead of sleeping (literally not metaphoricly); or do you mean sentient as to a living organism is to an inanimate object such as a rock; or do you mean as in consciousness that tells us as individuals what value based on good or bad our actions have.

I mean consciousness as in the later option of your post. As in sentience.

[helliehexx]

Daedric_Odyssey, I'm confused. First, you want to start a philosophical debate under the assumption that there is no free-will, and everything is already determined. Then you try to argue purpose on the basis that you yourself decide purpose, which you can only do by admitting free-will. Don't set a standard if you are going to break it. Or at least explain to me how we have a "determined" purpose that an individual can "choose".

[Gemma Archer]

There isn't some natural objective "purpose" that the universe chose.

but there is. and it isn't based on any idealology or perspective to make it subject tive, it simply is.

I mean consciousness as in the later option of your post. As in sentience.

ah, well in that case my response is that being sentient cannot be broadly classified by a generalization of a species. most people simply say that humans are sentient simply because as a species we are one of the most successful (in relative terms) but I know for a fact that most people aren't sentient. by which I mean they are not self aware at all, they merely react based upon emotional and psychological motives from a basic system of reward/consequence.

[Project]

Daedric_Odyssey, I'm confused. First, you want to start a philosophical debate under the assumption that there is no free-will, and everything is already determined. Then you try to argue purpose on the basis that you yourself decide purpose, which you can only do by admitting free-will. Don't set a standard if you are going to break it. Or at least explain to me how we have a "determined" purpose that an individual can "choose".

I did word it confusingly. When I say "choose," I mean in a loose sense. Perhaps I should say, "perceive to chose." A choice is simply when a being makes an extraordinarily complex yet pre-determined calculation in their brain, and perceives it as being made by their sentience.

[Conor Byrne]

I know for a fact that most people aren't sentient. by which I mean they are not self aware at all, they merely react based upon emotional and psychological motives from a basic system of reward/consequence.

Are you saying that you know for a fact that most people literally do not perceive their own existence? If you could please back this up with text or links, I would be very, very interested.

[Nick Swan]

I have to ask then, does the assumption allow for the idea of good and evil? Or right and wrong?

[Sherry Speakman]

If I may, conversations are competitions and I believe I've won this one.

[Catharine Krupinski]

Are you saying that you know for a fact that most people literally do not perceive their own existence? If you could please back this up with text or links, I would be very, very interested.

Maybe everyone they know is braindead :shrug:

[Ben sutton]

Are you saying that you know for a fact that most people literally do not perceive their own existence? If you could please back this up with text or links, I would be very, very interested.

yes, at least that its my opinion that it is fact. but I did not simply concieve the thought because it popped into my head, maybe I should have stated I observed that most people are not sentient.

and yes, most people literally do not percieve their own existence. I will give you an example from back when I was in highschool biology. in class one day we were being instructed about the balance of ecology: specificly wolfs and white hares.

hares in times of excess food supply will multiply rapidly which would allow for wolfs to have excess food to exponentially boost their population as well, however, once the wolfs became as many enough to where the hares no longer had a ecological advantage to rapidly reproduce theri species they begin to dwindle, and the wolfs eventually starve once the population of hares is back to normal level or less and there are far too many wolfs per hare.

were the wolfs self aware of their existance, how their actions and impact upon the ecology they take part in they would have know to take moderation in their procreation. I find this to be hilarious because its the assumption and adament belief of many people in our species that our ecology will never fail to support our ever exponentially growing population. most humans simply lack the self aweness to realize that their own drive to mass populate their species has become its greatest threat to successfully continuing to exist.

[Bones47]

I have to ask then, does the assumption allow for the idea of good and evil? Or right and wrong?

Very loosely. Good and evil, right and wrong, are subjective in this case. They are whatever the hell you want them to be, really. A biased racist may feel as though he's being righteous. In this case, he would be doing "good," even though his actions are doing harm. Basically, one's attempt to do the right thing, even if they are blinded or making poor judgments, is "good" regardless of the actual result. That is subjective morality. Does an objective morality exist, a set of "right and wrong" rules that are morally superior? That is a very difficult question, but I think that the answer may be yes, of course with the assumptions being applied.

Hypothetically, imagine that you could gauge how positively or negatively a person is affected by an action. This would of course be very complex, but since the universe is deterministic, such a thing could be calculated. Next, you compute the perfect set of rules that will have the highest possible net gain of positive effect on peoples' lives.

Making decisions (again, deterministic ones, not products of free will) that are closer to this perfect set of rules is considered "more moral." And in descending moral value is every other possible set of rules that a person may live by, from the most truly righteous down to the most evil.

That is what I think of "objective" morality.

[Ricky Meehan]

yes, at least that its my opinion that it is fact. but I did not simply concieve the thought because it popped into my head, maybe I should have stated I observed that most people are not sentient.

and yes, most people literally do not percieve their own existence. I will give you an example from back when I was in highschool biology. in class one day we were being instructed about the balance of ecology: specificly wolfs and white hares.

hares in times of excess food supply will multiply rapidly which would allow for wolfs to have excess food to exponentially boost their population as well, however, once the wolfs became as many enough to where the hares no longer had a ecological advantage to rapidly reproduce theri species they begin to dwindle, and the wolfs eventually starve once the population of hares is back to normal level or less and there are far too many wolfs per hare.

were the wolfs self aware of their existance, how their actions and impact upon the ecology they take part in they would have know to take moderation in their procreation. I find this to be hilarious because its the assumption and adament belief of many people in our species that our ecology will never fail to support our ever exponentially growing population. most humans simply lack the self aweness to realize that their own drive to mass populate their species has become its greatest threat to successfully continuing to exist.

Well I don't quite agree with this. The instincts that cause organisms to procreate are designed to overcome logic. Wolves probably wouldn't last too long if their logic was designed to have more influence on their actions than instincts. It's not good to make risky, long-term, pack-affecting plans when you have the IQ of a wolf. I think that they can perceive their lives, but they just live much more on instincts than we do.

[stacy hamilton]

Well I don't quite agree with this. The instincts that cause organisms to procreate are designed to overcome logic. Wolves probably wouldn't last too long if their logic was designed to have more influence on their actions than instincts. It's not good to make risky, long-term, pack-affecting plans when you have the IQ of a wolf. I think that they can perceive their lives, but they just live much more on instincts than we do.

we as humans live on instinct just as much as any animal. there are three basic things that organisms much fulfill to be successful as a species, eat (to survive long enough), procreate (to provide a future for the species) and to die (in that order obviously). every action that does not fall into those three motives, is irelevent to humans obligation to the continuation of their species. people get so distracted by pleasure and extra ciricular exploits that they forget that their base existence is purely instinctual. people don't think about eating/surviving because its necessary for their species future, they do so because they have the basic instinct to survive. people don't think "I have to have children so that my species will continue" while having six, they're motive for doing so is based on pleasure, which is an instinctual reward. and death, well death needs no motive or instinctual drive because it is unavoidable.

IQ is irrelevent, our daily survival has nothing to do with our intellegence. our intellegence has only made that survival easier and covenaint which =s to a subjectivly successful species.

[Harinder Ghag]

we as humans live on instinct just as much as any animal. there are three basic things that organisms much fulfill to be successful as a species, eat (to survive long enough), procreate (to provide a future for the species) and to die (in that order obviously). every action that does not fall into those three motives, is irelevent to humans obligation to the continuation of their species. people get so distracted by pleasure and extra ciricular exploits that they forget that their base existence is purely instinctual. people don't think about eating/surviving because its necessary for their species future, they do so because they have the basic instinct to survive. people don't think "I have to have children so that my species will continue" while having six, they're motive for doing so is based on pleasure, which is an instinctual reward. and death, well death needs no motive or instinctual drive because it is unavoidable.

IQ is irrelevent, our daily survival has nothing to do with our intellegence. our intellegence has only made that survival easier and covenaint which =s to a subjectivly successful species.

Yes, but my point is that since wolves are so unintelligent (when it comes to making some kind of long-term plans), their psychology should naturally place reproduction above any kind of logically-based plans. So it comes as me to no surprise that wolves will reproduce, even if it will punish them in the end.

[lolly13]

Yes, but my point is that since wolves are so unintelligent (when it comes to making some kind of long-term plans), their psychology should naturally place reproduction above any kind of logically-based plans. So it comes as me to no surprise that wolves will reproduce, even if it will punish them in the end.

and is what most humans do now. which Is why I said that most people are not self aware. I was not speaking of intellegence or whethor wolfs or men are smarter than the other, merely that both in lack the awareness of self to be able to alter their fate. I simply stated that most people are not self aware was a fact based on the observation of the majority of people who would agree that there is an issue with over population but at the same time do not connect that fact with their disire/obsession to appropreate more humans.

[Christine]

and is what most humans do now. which Is why I said that most people are not self aware. I was not speaking of intellegence or whethor wolfs or men are smarter than the other, merely that both in lack the awareness of self to be able to alter their fate. I simply stated that most people are not self aware was a fact based on the observation of the majority of people who would agree that there is an issue with over population but at the same time do not connect that fact with their disire/obsession to appropreate more humans.

But instincts would still overcome the wolves. It's like telling a fat man not to eat your cake. Even if he is sentient and is aware of the consequences, he may do it anyways, because his instinct overcame his will. Is this the lack of a soul, or merely the lack of intuition and foresight? I would say the latter.