The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?  (Read 307674 times)

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1000 on: 29/11/2013 23:40:21 »
I'd be fascinated if consciousness involved quantum mechanics, and I think it would result in a whole new level of understanding as far as how it works. I've read articles about quantum mechanics in olfaction and in photosynthesis.
It wouldn't surprise me excessively if QM is involved in optimising the efficiency of neurotransmission in a similar way it's involved in photosynthesis, but this is an optimisation of an existing process, not a novel process in its own right.

Quote
But if people are just looking to use quantum mechanics as a bridge to the mystical, I think they will be dissatisfied with the outcome in the end, and it won't necessarily endow consciousness with the qualities they are hoping for.
Yes, quite. The underlying model for QM may be obscure, but that doesn't mean the observable results are unpredictable or beyond comprehension - in fact, QM is the most precise theory we have by orders of magnitude. There's no good reason to link it to mystical or unknowable realms.
 
Quote
And it seems odd that all along that the argument was that consciousness is not physical, it's not in the brain, so it doesn't have to obey the laws of physics, but now suddenly, the argument is "The brain is a physical entity and we have no reason to suppose that it evades the rules of quantum physics."
Indeed. It's a contradiction that inevitably arises out of the a-priori assumption that consciousness is somehow 'special' and non-physical in origin by nature of it's unresolved mechanism. This special pleading opens an explanatory gap that requires a non-physical explanation with physical effects, which tempts a connection with the other major unresolved mechanism, QM, because it superficially appears to have physical and non-physical aspects.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1001 on: 30/11/2013 13:27:07 »
... have better falsifiable theories on the subject then, since  the immaterial  mind cannot be in  the physical brain , since the immaterial mind cannot be the  "product " of the  physical brain's activity ?
The words are English, but the sentence is gibberish - care to rephrase it so it makes sense?

Quote
.... what makes you think that "all is matter ,including the mind " ? : that's just the false materialist conception of nature, no empirical fact .
You seem to have a knack of clumsy and inaccurate generalisations. My position is that all the evidence I've seen indicates that the mind, including consciousness, is a product of interacting processes of material origin. We've already posted some of that evidence; I've said this all before, but for me there are two complementary sides to it: positive circumstantial evidence, and negative circumstantial evidence:

Positive - the experimental and observational evidence that specific physical influence or damage to the brain produces consistent and specific effects on consciousness that are inconsistent with the idea that consciousness is an external influence on the brain, and entirely consistent with the idea that it is internally generated.

Negative - the lack of any indications in the neurophysiology or structural anatomy of the brain of support for any  interface to an external controlling consciousness, and the lack of any evidence of such control during years of observation from whole brain level down to the function of individual neurons. Despite years of parapsychological research, and years of experimental physics with the most sensitive instruments, no evidence of any immaterial influences has been confirmed; there is no model or even coherent definition for the immaterial, or for how consciousness can be part of it.

The basic idea of the immaterial affecting the material is itself incoherent, but if you try to define something in terms of what it isn't, these are the kinds of problems you'll get.

Quote
Otherwise , try to prove to the people here that "all is  matter  , including the mind " then ?
Why on Earth would I want to do that? Science isn't about proof, it's about explanatory models with utility and predictive power.

If you suggest ways by which the 'immaterial hypothesis' can be tested, i.e. how it is falsifiable, and describe how it has greater utility, explanatory, and predictive power than the current materialistic models, I'm sure people will jump at the chance to make history.

As it is, you're just parrotting an unsupported (and apparently unsupportable) assumption that consciousness can't have a material origin - contradicting all available evidence; and the lame straw man that mainstream science is about absolute truths and facts. Both assertions are full of holes, and won't hold water. You've ignored repeated requests to support any of your assertions with evidence or reasonable argument, but you can't. You're a timewaster.
 
Quote
Amazing ....
Thanks :)
« Last Edit: 30/11/2013 13:36:01 by dlorde »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1002 on: 30/11/2013 16:47:32 »
Folks : This is "dynamite ", this is "controlled demolition " of materialism  by an ex-materialist : This might be the last nail to be knocked on the coffin of materialism :  Enjoy

David J. Chalmers was a convinced reductionist , and he reluctantly admits and proves the fact to be true that materialism cannot account for consciousness , and hence materialism is false .
He even explicitly suggests that some forms of dualism might be true ...

Not to mention that he tries in the below mentioned book of his to come up with a non-reductionist naturalist physical quantum theory of consciousness ....

" The Conscious Mind " By David J.Chalmers :

Introduction :



"The Conscious Mind " by David J.Chalmers.
INTRODUCTION:
TAKING CONSCIOUSNESS SERIOUSLY:
Consciousness is the biggest mystery. It may be the largest outstanding obstacle in our quest for a scientific
understanding of the universe. The science of physics is not yet complete, but it is well understood; the science
of biology has removed many ancient mysteries surrounding the nature of life. There are gaps in our
understanding of these fields, but they do not seemintractable. We have a sense of what a solution to these
problems might look like; we just need to get the details right.
Even in the science of the mind, much progress has been made. Recent work in cognitive science and
neuroscience is leading us to a better understanding of human behavior and of the processes that drive it. We do
not have many detailed theories of cognition, to be sure, but the details cannot be too far off. Consciousness,
however, is as perplexing as it ever was. It still seems utterly mysterious that the causation of behavior should be
accompanied by a subjective inner life.
We have good reason to believe that consciousness arises fromphysical systems such as brains, but we have
little idea how it arises, or why it exists at all. Howcould a physical systemsuch as a brain also be an
experiencer? Why should there be something it is like to be such a system? Present-day scientific theories hardly
touch the really difficult questions about consciousness. We do not just lack a detailed theory; we are entirely in
the dark about how consciousness fits into the natural order.
Many books and articles on consciousness have appeared in the past fewyears, and one might think that we are
making progress. But on a closer look, most of this work leaves the hardest problems about consciousness
untouched. Often, such work addresses what might be called the ''easy" problems of consciousness: Howdoes
the brain process environmental stimula-
Page xii
tion? Howdoes it integrate information? How do we produce reports on internal states? These are important
questions, but to answer themis not to solve the hard problem:Why is all this processing accompanied by an
experienced inner life? Sometimes this question is ignored entirely; sometimes it is put off until another day; and
sometimes it is simply declared answered. But in each case, one is left with the feeling that the central problem
remains as puzzling as ever.
This puzzlement is not a cause for despair; rather, it makes the problemof consciousness one of the most
exciting intellectual challenges of our time. Because consciousness is both so fundamental and so ill understood,
a solution to the problemmay profoundly affect our conception of the universe and of ourselves.
I a man optimist about consciousness: I think that we will eventually have a theory of it, and in this book I look
for one. But consciousness is not just business as usual; if we are to make progress, the first thing we must do is
face up to the things that make the problemso difficult. Then we can move forward toward a theory, without
blinkers and with a good idea of the task at hand.
In this book, I do not solve the problemof consciousness once and for all, but I try to rein it in. I try to get clear
about what the problems are, I argue that the standard methods of neuroscience and cognitive science do not
work in addressing them, and then I try to move forward.
In developing my account of consciousness, I have tried to obey a number of constraints. The first and most
important is to take consciousness seriously. The easiest way to develop a ''theory" of consciousness is to deny
its existence, or to redefine the phenomenon in need of explanation as something it is not. This usually leads to
an elegant theory, but the problemdoes not go away. Throughout this book, I have assumed that consciousness
exists, and that to redefine the problemas that of explaining how certain cognitive or behavioral functions are
performed is unacceptable. This is what I mean by taking consciousness seriously.
Some say that consciousness is an "illusion," but I have little idea what this could even mean. It seems to me that
we are surer of the existence of conscious experience than we are of anything else in the world. I have tried hard
at times to convince myself that there is really nothing there, that conscious experience is empty, an illusion.
There is something seductive about this notion, which philosophers throughout the ages have exploited, but in
the end it is utterly unsatisfying. I find myself absorbed in an orange sensation, and something is going on. There
is something that needs explaining, even after we have explained the processes of discrimination and action:
there is the experience.
True, I cannot prove that there is a further problem, precisely because I cannot prove that consciousness exists.
We know about consciousness more
Page xiii
directly than we know about anything else, so ''proof" is inappropriate. The best I can do is provide arguments
wherever possible, while rebutting arguments fromthe other side. There is no denying that this involves an
appeal to intuition at some point; but all arguments involve intuition somewhere, and I have tried to be clear
about the intuitions involved in mine.
This might be seen as a Great Divide in the study of consciousness. If you hold that an answer to the "easy"
problems explains everything that needs to be explained, then you get one sort of theory; if you hold that there is
a further "hard" problem, then you get another. After a point, it is difficult to argue across this divide, and
discussions are often reduced to table pounding. To me, it seems obvious that there is something further that
needs explaining here; to others, it seems acceptable that there is not. (Informal surveys suggest that the
numbers run two or three to one in favor of the former view, with the ratio fairly constant across academics and
students in a variety of fields.)We may simply have to learn to live with this basic division.
This book may be of intellectual interest to those who think there is not much of a problem, but it is really
intended for those who feel the problemin their bones. By now, we have a fairly good idea of the sort of theory
we get if we assume there is no problem. In this work, I have tried to explore what follows given that there is a
problem. The real argument of the book is that if one takes consciousness seriously, the position I lay out is
where one should end up.
The second constraint I have followed is to take science seriously. I have not tried to dispute current scientific
theories in domains where they have authority. At the same time, I have not been afraid to go out on a limb in
areas where scientists' opinions are as ungrounded as everyone else's. For example, I have not disputed that the
physical world is causally closed or that behavior can be explained in physical terms; but if a physicist or a
cognitive scientist suggests that consciousness can be explained in physical terms, this is merely a hope
ungrounded in current theory, and the question remains open. So I have tried to keep my ideas compatible with
contemporary science, but I have not restricted my ideas to what contemporary scientists find fashionable.
The third constraint is that I take consciousness to be a natural phenomenon, falling under the sway of natural
laws. If so, then there should be some correct scientific theory of consciousness, whether or not we can arrive at
such a theory. That consciousness is a natural phenomenon seems hard to dispute: it is an extraordinarily salient
part of nature, arising throughout the human species and very likely in many others. And we have every reason
to believe that natural phenomena are subject to fundamental natural laws; it would be very strange if
consciousness were not. This is not to say that the natural laws concerning consciousness will be just like laws in
other domains, or even that they will be physical laws. They may be quite different in kind.
Page xiv
The problemof consciousness lies uneasily at the border of science and philosophy. I would say that it is
properly a scientific subject matter: it is a natural phenomenon like motion, life, and cognition, and calls out for
explanation in the way that these do. But it is not open to investigation by the usual scientific methods.
Everyday scientific methodology has trouble getting a grip on it, not least because of the difficulties in observing
the phenomenon. Outside the first-person case, data are hard to come by. This is not to say that no external data
can be relevant, but we first have to arrive at a coherent philosophical understanding before we can justify the
data's relevance. So the problemof consciousness may be a scientific problem that requires philosophical
methods of understanding before we can get off the ground.
In this book I reach conclusions that some people may think of as ''antiscientific":

I argue that reductive
explanation of consciousness is impossible, and I even argue for a form of dualism
. But this is just part of the
scientific process. Certain sorts of explanation turn out not to work, so we need to embrace other sorts of
explanation instead. Everything I say here is compatible with the results of contemporary science; our picture of
the natural world is broadened, not overturned. And this broadening allows the possibility of a naturalistic
theory of consciousness that might have been impossible without it. It seems to me that to ignore the problems
of consciousness would be antiscientific; it is in the scientific spirit to face up to themdirectly.
To those who
suspect that science requires materialism, I ask that you wait and see
.

I should note that the conclusions of this work are conclusions, in the strongest sense.

Temperamentally, I am
strongly inclined toward materialist reductive explanation, and I have no strong spiritual or religious inclinations.
For a number of years, I hoped for a materialist theory; when I gave up on this hope, it was quite reluctantly. It
eventually seemed plain to me that these conclusions were forced on anyone who wants to take consciousness
seriously. Materialism is a beautiful and compelling view of the world, but to account for consciousness, we
have to go beyond the resources it provides.

By now, I have grown almost happy with these conclusions. They do not seemto have any fearsome
consequences, and they allow a way of thinking and theorizing about consciousness that seems more
satisfactory in almost every way. And the expansion in the scientific worldviewhas had a positive effect, at least
for me: it has made the universe seema more interesting place.
This book has four parts. In the first, I lay out the problems, and set up a framework within which they can be
addressed. Chapter 1 is an introduction to consciousness, teasing apart a number of different concepts in the
vicinity, drawing out the sense in which consciousness is really interesting, and giving a preliminary account of
its subtle relation to the rest of the mind. Chapter
Page xv
2 develops a metaphysical and explanatory framework within which much of the rest of the discussion is cast.
What is it for a phenomenon to be reductively explained, or to be physical? This chapter gives an account of
these things, centering on the notion of supervenience. I argue that there is good reason to believe that almost
everything in the world can be reductively explained; but consciousness may be an exception.
With these preliminaries out of the way, the second part focuses on the irreducibility of consciousness. Chapter
3 argues that standard methods of reductive explanation cannot account for consciousness. I also give a critique
of various reductive accounts that have been put forward by researchers in neuroscience, cognitive science, and
elsewhere. This is not just a negative conclusion: it follows that a satisfactory theory of consciousness must be a
newsort of nonreductive theory instead. Chapter 4 takes things a step further by arguing that materialismis
false and that a formof dualismis true, and outlines the general shape that a nonreductive theory of
consciousness might take. Chapter 5 is largely defensive: it considers some apparent problems for my view,
involving the relationship between consciousness and our judgments about consciousness, and argues that they
pose no fatal difficulties.
In the third part, I move toward a positive theory of consciousness. Each of the three chapters here develops a
component of a positive theory. Chapter 6 focuses on the ''coherence" between
« Last Edit: 30/11/2013 19:21:26 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1003 on: 30/11/2013 16:48:05 »
consciousness and cognitive
processes, drawing a number of systematic links between the two. I use these links to analyze and ground the
central role that neuroscience and cognitive science play in explaining human consciousness. Chapter 7 discusses
the relation between consciousness and functional organization, using thought experiments to argue that
consciousness is an "organizational invariant": that is, that every systemwith the right functional organization
will have the same sort of conscious experience, no matter what it is made of. Chapter 8 considers what a
fundamental theory of consciousness might look like, and suggests that it may involve a close relation between
consciousness and information. This is by far the most speculative chapter, but at this point some speculation is
probably needed if we are to make progress.
The last two chapters are dessert. Here, I apply what has gone before to central questions in the foundations of
artificial intelligence and quantummechanics. Chapter 9 argues for the thesis of "strong artificial intelligence":
that the implementation of an appropriate computer programwill give rise to a conscious mind. Chapter 10
considers the baffling question of how quantummechanics should be interpreted, and uses the ideas about
consciousness developed in previous chapters to lend support to a "no-collapse" interpretation of the theory.
Perhaps the negative material will provoke the most reaction, but my real goal is positive: I want to see a theory
of consciousness that works. When I first came into philosophy, I was surprised to find that most of the debate
Page xvi
over consciousness focused on whether there was a problemor not, or on whether it was physical or not, and
that the business of building theories seemed to be left to one side. The only ''theories" seemed to be put forward
by those who (by my lights) did not take consciousness seriously. By now, I have come to enjoy the intricacies
of the ontological debate as much as anyone, but a detailed theory is stillmy major goal. If some of the ideas in
this book are useful to others in constructing a better theory, the attempt will have been worthwhile.
This book is intended as a serious work of philosophy, but I have tried to make it accessible to nonphilosophers.
In my notional audience at all times has been my undergraduate self of ten years ago: I hope I have written a
book that he would have appreciated. There are a fewsections that are philosophically technical. These are
marked with an asterisk (*), and readers should feel free to skip them. The most technical material is in Chapter
2 and Chapter 4. Section 4 of the former and sections 2 and 3 of the latter involve intricate issues in
philosophical semantics, as does the final section of Chapter 5. Other asterisked sections might be worth at least
skimming, to get an idea of what is going on. Often, I have put especially technical material and comments on
the philosophical literature in the endnotes. The one technical concept that is crucial to the book is that of
supervenience, introduced at the start of Chapter 2. This concept has an intimidating name but it expresses a
very natural idea, and a good understanding of it will help central issues fall into place. Much of the material
later in this chapter can be skipped on a first reading, although one might want to return to it later to clarify
questions as they arise.
For a short tour that avoids technicalities, read Chapter 1, skimthe early parts of Chapter 2 as background
material, then read all of Chapter 3 (skimming section 1 where necessary) for the central arguments against
reductive explanation, and the first and last sections of Chapter 4 for the central considerations about dualism.
The beginning of Chapter 6 is worth reading for the basic shape of the positive approach. Of the positive
material, Chapter 7 is perhaps the most self-contained chapter as well as the most fun, with easy-to-understand
thought experiments involving silicon brains; and those who like wild and woolly speculation might enjoy
Chapter 8. Finally, Chapters 9 and 10 should make sense to anyone with an interest in the issues involved.
Acouple of philosophical notes. The philosophical literature on consciousness is quite unsystematic, with
seemingly independent strands talking about related issues without making contact with each other. I have
attempted to impose some structure on the sprawl by providing a unifying framework in which the various
metaphysical and explanatory issues become clear. Much of the discussion in the literature can be translated into
this framework
Page xvii
without loss, and I hope the structure brings out the deep relationships between a number of different issues.
This work is perhaps unusual in largely eschewing the philosophical notion of identity (between mental and
physical states, say) in favor of the notion of supervenience. I find that discussions framed in terms of identity
generally throw more confusion than light onto the key issues, and often allow the central difficulties to be
evaded. By contrast, supervenience seems to provide an ideal framework within which the key issues can be
addressed. To avoid loose philosophy, however, we need to focus on the strength of the supervenience
connection: Is it underwritten by logical necessity, natural necessity, or something else? It is widely agreed that
consciousness supervenes on the physical in some sense; the real question is how tight the connection is.
Discussions that ignore these modal issues generally avoid the hardest questions about consciousness. Those
skeptical of modal notions will be skeptical of my entire discussion, but I think there is no other satisfactory way
to frame the issues.
One of the delights of working on this book, for me, has come fromthe way the problemof consciousness has
reached out to make contact with deep issues in many other areas of science and philosophy. But the scope and
depth of the problemalso make it humbling. I amacutely aware that at almost every point in this book there is
more that could be said, and that in many places I have only scratched the surface. But I hope, minimally, to have
suggested that it is possible to make progress on the problemof consciousness without denying its existence or
reducing it to something it is not. The problemis fascinating, and the future is exciting.
Page xviii
No. Xia stopped, twirling toward himin slow motion. Her icy mint eyes grewwide. You're in danger here.
Panic whitened her face as she stared toward the house. Go home now. Before it's too late. And find me the
antidote.
What kind of antidote?
Xia disappeared beyond the junipers, yet her final message burst into Joey's mind like the pop of a
firecracker: The antidote for zombie poison.
Dian Curtis Regan, My Zombie Valentine
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1004 on: 30/11/2013 17:00:37 »
The Ideological Materialist Promethean Science ,and the Utopian Metaphysically Neutral Science :

Note that science should be in fact metaphysically neutral ,not materialist or otherwise , but that's just an utopia .

The ancient Greek myth in which Prometheus ,a Titan , stole fire from the gods ,and gave it to humans ,still underlies modern science ,sub-consciously or consciously ,a scientific underlying myth that was vividly reflected  by "The challenger " (challenging who or what exactly ? ) ,the NASA space ship which ,unfortunately enough , exploded moments after take off ,costing the lives of 7 brilliant scientists astronauts  in the process  ,for everybody to witness on tv in the late 1980's .

Francis Bacon was the first to be clever enough to embody that Promethean myth in science ,under the guise of piety ,when he coined "Knowledge is power " famous adage .
Descartes took that over from him, by introducing the mechanistic materialist view of nature for the first time , in the natural sciences ,while 'leaving " the mind to the church out of fear of being persecuted .

Materialism was then extended , later on , to philosophy, to whole science ,and to the rest,by reaching its peak at the second half of the 19th century  .
Since then, science has become fully Promethean ,by "turning humans into gods, before deserving to be humans " , as Einstein once said 
The birth of the Promethean materialistic science was the result   of the Eurocentric historic religious intolerance ,and of the inquisitory supremacy of the medieval church .
Regardless thus of the fact whether science itself was born from the  very womb of a non-western religion or not , fact is, the conflcit between religion or dualism and between the materialistic reductionist naturalist monism was born in medieval Europe thus .
Since then , the Promethean adage " Knowledge is power " was king in science , the new human gods produced by Promethean science felt so powerful ,so wise , so omniscient and so Titanic invincible that they have been thinking they could subject  and capture the whole universe and beyond, not just nature or earth : no mysteries of the universe could not be demystified and explained , thanks to the godlike powerful ,and superhuman , omniscient explanatory power of the new materialist mechanistic Promethean science .Anything that could not fit into the materialist mainstream Promethean "scientific world view " was simply branded as pre-scientific outmoded or outdated and as primitive superstitions or  delusions illusions fairytales , especially religions .
The materialist Promethean omniscient science has become the one and only ultimate and valid source of knowledge secular religion , all huamanity , must embrace ,if the latter wants to be progressive , civilized or evolved developed advanced .
The materialist world view has become the new   undisputed and unfalsifiable  "scientific " secular religion dogma .
What Karl Popper failed to see is that the so-called metaphysically neutral science was/is and will still be an ideal ,an utopia to be reached by humanity ,in the far future .
I do think though that the metaphysically neutral science is just a myth .
Humanity is still not evolved developed or advanced enough to be able to rise  to the high level of that utopian ideal ,represented by that elusive mythical  idealistic utopian metaphysically neutral science .
What Popper failed to see is that religion ,and even science itself , are just human activities , in the sense that they are just reflections of the highest and of the lowest which are in every one of us , as human beings .
So, instead of being a priceless beautiful unparalleled gift to all humanity,Promethean materialist science has been becoming an instrument of polarization , has become a theater of ideological struggle .
The materialist camp claims science for itself exclusively , by branding non-materialists as pseudo-scientists , as charlatans or worse .
Dualists do almost the same by branding materialists as the new "scientific" church ....
Poor science proper has been left in the middle ,with almost no one to speak on its behalf .
Science does speak ,but nobody seems to be hearing what it says :  science says in fact : leave me alone haha , folks , i should be neither materialist ,nor dualist or idealist , so, just let me be ,humans , i will be able to be my true me ,only when you, humans will be able to reflect the highest which is in every one of you , simply because i am you , i am just a reflection of the highest and of the lowest which are in every human , i am just a human activity .

Science tells us all that it will be waiting for our ultimate evolution that might enable us all to reach the metaphysicalyl neutral level of science .

The metaphysically neutral science is just an utopia  though , we can only dream of ever reaching in fact= a myth ,which also means that science can never be metaphysically neutral indeed ,simply because science is just a human activity ,and simply because man's attempts to try to reach the highest which is in man , can be maybe and just probably achieved only by just some rare exceptional individuals humans , and even then , the latter can rarely remain at that level,naturally    .
Untill  then, let's go back to trying to deliver some competitive falsifiable theories with more or less explanatory power,since materialism is ...false  .

Shall we, folks ?


« Last Edit: 30/11/2013 17:59:36 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1005 on: 30/11/2013 17:17:32 »
... have better falsifiable theories on the subject then, since  the immaterial  mind cannot be in  the physical brain , since the immaterial mind cannot be the  "product " of the  physical brain's activity ?
The words are English, but the sentence is gibberish - care to rephrase it so it makes sense?

Quote
.... what makes you think that "all is matter ,including the mind " ? : that's just the false materialist conception of nature, no empirical fact .
You seem to have a knack of clumsy and inaccurate generalisations. My position is that all the evidence I've seen indicates that the mind, including consciousness, is a product of interacting processes of material origin. We've already posted some of that evidence; I've said this all before, but for me there are two complementary sides to it: positive circumstantial evidence, and negative circumstantial evidence:

Positive - the experimental and observational evidence that specific physical influence or damage to the brain produces consistent and specific effects on consciousness that are inconsistent with the idea that consciousness is an external influence on the brain, and entirely consistent with the idea that it is internally generated.

Negative - the lack of any indications in the neurophysiology or structural anatomy of the brain of support for any  interface to an external controlling consciousness, and the lack of any evidence of such control during years of observation from whole brain level down to the function of individual neurons. Despite years of parapsychological research, and years of experimental physics with the most sensitive instruments, no evidence of any immaterial influences has been confirmed; there is no model or even coherent definition for the immaterial, or for how consciousness can be part of it.

The basic idea of the immaterial affecting the material is itself incoherent, but if you try to define something in terms of what it isn't, these are the kinds of problems you'll get.

Quote
Otherwise , try to prove to the people here that "all is  matter  , including the mind " then ?
Why on Earth would I want to do that? Science isn't about proof, it's about explanatory models with utility and predictive power.

If you suggest ways by which the 'immaterial hypothesis' can be tested, i.e. how it is falsifiable, and describe how it has greater utility, explanatory, and predictive power than the current materialistic models, I'm sure people will jump at the chance to make history.

As it is, you're just parrotting an unsupported (and apparently unsupportable) assumption that consciousness can't have a material origin - contradicting all available evidence; and the lame straw man that mainstream science is about absolute truths and facts. Both assertions are full of holes, and won't hold water. You've ignored repeated requests to support any of your assertions with evidence or reasonable argument, but you can't. You're a timewaster.
 
Quote
Amazing ....
Thanks :)
[/quote]

Oh, poor boy :  you have to try to be brave and intellectually scientifically honest  enough to face the music :

What are you afraid of ?
Materialism cannot account for consciousness ,and hence materialism is false ,as ex-reductionist David J.Chalmers has tried to prove in the extremely enlightening above mentioned book of his : enjoy .

Consciousness cannot be but non-physical, since physics and chemistry alone cannot account for the conscious experience :
Mary could see only black and white + some shades of grey , but that did not prevent her from becoming a great neurologist that could explain many neurological and behavioral phenomena , but , nothing can make her feel what it is like to experience color or red ,materialist science cannot account for what it is like to be a bat , as Nagel used to say ...
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1006 on: 30/11/2013 17:21:45 »
It seems that everyone here has missed the  fact that i made a mistake by saying that the physical theory of everything is an attempt to unify Einstein's theory of relativity with that of ....haha ...Newton's theory of gravity :

That was in fact just a Freudian slip of the tongue : i had Newton in mind when i wanted to say that physicists try to unify Einstein's theory of relativity with ...quantum theory ...
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1007 on: 30/11/2013 17:25:46 »
I must also admit that it is indeed inconceivable at this stage,and  in this time and age ,to imagine how the immaterial consciousness can effect the physical brain,or vice versa , the physical brain that has to obey to the laws of physics anyway and either way ...

Maybe , some genius in the future will be able to solve that mystery puzzle .
Who knows ?
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1008 on: 30/11/2013 17:31:54 »

Greyson has also elaborated on this confusion. He states, ďMaterialists often claim credit for the
scientific advances of the past few centuries. But it is the scientific method of empirical hypothesis
testing, rather than a materialistic philosophy, that has been responsible for the success of science in
explaining the world.


True, but it's kind of a silly argument. That's like saying that one could be a gourmet chef and prepare a meal without actually using any ingredients or cooking utensils. Sure, you can invent imaginary recipes, but that's as far as you'll get.

You still do not get it yet , amazing :
That's what i have been saying all along : all scientific achievements were /are being and will be accomplished by scientists, whether they happen to be materialists or non-materialists ( Many great scientists were / are and will be religious ones , for example : Newton and many others ) , all scientific achievements thus were / are being / and will be accomplished by scientists just  through, and just thanks to,  the effective and unparalled scientific method that's like no other = materialism as a false ideology has absolutely nothing to do with all those scientific achievements indeed .

And you still cannot explain how you would construct an experiment to test the immaterial, which you said repeatedly is impossible. Hence, Popper's article is useless for your purposes, as is quantum mechanics since you've thoroughly explained that the immaterial and the mental is not in the brain, is not physical.  It "escapes the laws of physics" is, I believe, the phrase you used a few pages ago. You've painted yourself into a corner.
[/quote]

Who said that's impossible ? Opinions do change , do they not ?

See what David J.Chalmers said about all that here above .

P.S.: If you study the writings of Popper on the subject carefully , you would be able to detect pseudo-science at the very heart of current science as well indeed , pseudo-science at the very heart of current science that's embodied by  the materialist mainstream false "scientific world view " thus .

In short :

As Chalmers proved in that above mentioned book of his : materialism cannot account for consciousness, and hence materialism is ...false .

Chalmers tried also to come up with a non-reductionist naturalist physical quantum theory of consciousness .......in which consciousness is a non-physical process .

You, folks , do behave as if consciousness is an easy problem , it is not , consciousness is the biggest challenge to science ever , and that will remain so for nobody knows how long still :

We can only try to come up with theories regarding consciousness , and regarding the rest , the best way to do that is by trying to come up with falsifiable theories on the subject of consciousness at least : that's certainly  no easy task : who said it is anyway ? : consciousness is the main obstacle and is also THE key to understanding ourselves and the universe from within and without , as Chalmers said .
« Last Edit: 30/11/2013 17:38:50 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1009 on: 30/11/2013 17:34:10 »
I must also admit that it is indeed inconceivable at this stage,and  in this time and age ,to imagine how the immaterial consciousness can effect the physical brain,or vice versa , the physical brain that has to obey to the laws of physics anyway and either way ...

Maybe , some genius in the future will be able to solve that mystery puzzle .
Who knows ?
We're all holding our collective breath...................NOT
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1010 on: 30/11/2013 17:43:13 »

Note that science should be in fact metaphysically neutral ,not materialist or otherwise , but that's just an utopia .



It is. But you aren't looking for neutrality. You're looking for total acceptance of your beliefs by everyone in the field.

Earlier you said, "all scientific achievements were /are being and will be accomplished by scientists, whether they happen to be materialists or non-materialists."  Let's set aside for the moment the fact that "non-materialist" scientists, those who might have believed in God, didn't incorporate the immaterial into their actual scientific work. If you acknowledge that scientists have made valid discoveries in chemistry and physics, there's nothing false about what they did or do.

If your complaint is that science should encourage more studies about the immaterial, fine. No ones hands are tied from doing just that, unless you believe in some kind of conspiracy against it. Nevertheless, there's certainly no way of preventing someone from thinking up experimental designs to test the immaterial.

Lets say that some rich person left you, DonQuichotte, a large sum of money to fund such research. What aspect of the immaterial would you choose to study, and how would you design an experiment to test it? Have any of your sources described specific experiments they would do if they had the opportunity and funding?

« Last Edit: 30/11/2013 17:47:11 by cheryl j »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1011 on: 30/11/2013 17:44:34 »
I must also admit that it is indeed inconceivable at this stage,and  in this time and age ,to imagine how the immaterial consciousness can effect the physical brain,or vice versa , the physical brain that has to obey to the laws of physics anyway and either way ...

Maybe , some genius in the future will be able to solve that mystery puzzle .
Who knows ?
We're all holding our collective breath...................NOT
[/quote]

Consciousness is no doubt THE biggest obstacle and THE biggest Key to understanding ourselves and the universe : see Chalmers here above .

To try to approach consciousness is a must thus , an imperative ,a vital quest to pursue , simply because there is nothing out there more important than trying to solve the mystery of consciousness somehow :  materialist science can no longer afford to see consciousness as just a so-called unnecessary or useless by-product of evolution ,consciousness is certainly not  the latter  .
The materialist version of evolution cannot account for consciousness either .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1012 on: 30/11/2013 18:15:28 »

Note that science should be in fact metaphysically neutral ,not materialist or otherwise , but that's just an utopia .



It is. But you aren't looking for neutrality. You're looking for total acceptance of your beliefs by everyone in the field.

Earlier you said, "all scientific achievements were /are being and will be accomplished by scientists, whether they happen to be materialists or non-materialists."  Let's set aside for the moment the fact that "non-materialist" scientists, those who might have believed in God, didn't incorporate the immaterial into their actual scientific work. If you acknowledge that scientists have made valid discoveries in chemistry and physics, there's nothing false about what they did or do.

If your complaint is that science should encourage more studies about the immaterial, fine. No ones hands are tied from doing just that, unless you believe in some kind of conspiracy against it. Nevertheless, there's certainly no way of preventing someone from thinking up experimental designs to test the immaterial.

Lets say that some rich person left you, DonQuichotte, a large sum of money to fund such research. What aspect of the immaterial would you choose to study, and how would you design an experiment to test it? Have any of your sources described specific experiments they would do if they had the opportunity and funding?
[/quote]

Wrong :

(I said that the so-called metaphysically neutral science is a myth , didn't i ?,science that's just a human activity , science that's practiced by humans scientists  )

The false "all is matter ,including the mind " mainstream materialist "scientific world view " does exclude , per definition , a priori and per se any scientific attempts to deal with consciousness as a non-physical process : see how the current majority of the mainstream scientific priesthood have been dealing with Sheldrake and co ,for example .

And even any naturalist conception of nature in science , either the materialist reductionist one , or the naturalist non-reductionist one , are false , according to me at least , simply because nature cannot account for or can "generate " either life or consciousness : that's just my metaphysical underlying conception of nature ,to be honest = not falsifiable = unscientific ,but not necessarily false .

So, since the so-called metaphysically neutral science is a myth , since any scientist out there is driven by his /her own metaphysical conception of nature under   the current exclusive supremacy and dominance of  materialism , why shouldn't i also have my own metaphysical conception of nature , i am not trying to impose on any one for that matter , unlke what materialism has been doing .

I think that science should try to explain what it can without any a -priori assumptions , but that's just an utopia , a myth thus ,unfortunately enough, simply because science is just a human activity ....
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1013 on: 30/11/2013 18:28:27 »
In fact , it is so : i guess :

Science is not driven by empiricism prior to any a-priori assumptions , it is exactly the other way around  ( when scientists do encounter any given inexplicable phenomena , they try to come up with more or less faslifiable theories on the subject ,under the dominating meta or paradigm in science , theories they try to test empirically afterwards thus )  ,so, science cannot be metaphysically neutral, simply because it is just a human activity , and hence humans cannot but have a-priori assumptions about the universe as a whole,untill those human a-priori assumptions are proven to be false ...empirically  .

Science is not about the truth , not about definite knowledge , just about approximate temporary knowledge or conjectures , and hence any given particular temporary metaphysical conception of nature,with more competitive explanatory power than the rest , cannot  but underly science,temporarily thus ,  untill it  gets falsified successfully ,then, another alternate competitive conception of nature  with more  explanatory power would take the upperhand, temporarily also , untill its gets falsified successfully ,in its turn ,and so on, indefinitly .

Materialism cannot account for consciousness , and hence materialism is false , and must be thus replaced by another alternate competitive conception of nature in science with more explanatory power ,temporarily , untill it gets faslified successfully in its turn , and so on , indefinitly ,relatively speaking,untill the end of time then (The same goes for  the political economic , social.... levels:  the so-called end of history theory such as that concerning  the presumed final victory of secular materialist liberal democracy , and its materialist capitalist wing , that 'end of history " theory is thus false also .)  .
« Last Edit: 30/11/2013 18:39:58 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1014 on: 30/11/2013 19:58:14 »




Wrong :

The false "all is matter ,including the mind " mainstream materialist "scientific world view " does exclude , per definition , a priori and per se any scientific attempts to deal with consciousness as a non-physical process : see how the current majority of the mainstream scientific priesthood have been dealing with Sheldrake and co ,for example .


Sheldrake has received the treatment he has because he has offered no evidence for his theories; they are un-testable, unfalsifiable. So his work so far has been relegated to pseudoscience, just as Popper says a theory like that should be.

Comets are discovered by amateur astronomers, whose equipment is not as big and fancy as research institution's. They may also lack advanced degrees or published papers. But their findings are taken seriously. Why? Because when other astronomers look, they can see the same thing.

Regardless of what a priori assumptions you think exist in the minds of scientists, if the evidence is there, people pay attention.
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1015 on: 30/11/2013 20:16:30 »
Folks : This is "dynamite ", this is "controlled demolition " of materialism  by an ex-materialist : This might be the last nail to be knocked on the coffin of materialism :  Enjoy
 

Your "dynamite" looks like an introduction to his book, which outlines what he is about to discuss. Since you've read it, what is the empirical evidence for his theory about how consciousness works? How does he propose to test his newer ideas?
« Last Edit: 30/11/2013 20:21:20 by cheryl j »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1016 on: 30/11/2013 20:28:36 »
Guys :

See here below "The conscious mind ..." By David J.Chalmers , especially the comments there below :

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/144960.The_Conscious_Mind
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1017 on: 30/11/2013 20:31:00 »
Folks : This is "dynamite ", this is "controlled demolition " of materialism  by an ex-materialist : This might be the last nail to be knocked on the coffin of materialism :  Enjoy
 

Your "dynamite" looks like an introduction to his book, which outlines what he is about to discuss. Since you've read it, what is the empirical evidence for his theory about how consciousness works? How does he propose to test his newer ideas?
[/quote]

I haven't read it yet , i have read just the introduction which is displayed here above , as you can see : it was recommended to me by some friends on the field .

The introduction pretty summarizes up the content of the book : pretty demolishing for materialism,and that by an ex-materialist such as Chalmers  .

Try to read the comments regarding that book, here above thus .
« Last Edit: 30/11/2013 20:34:56 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1018 on: 30/11/2013 20:46:54 »




Wrong :

The false "all is matter ,including the mind " mainstream materialist "scientific world view " does exclude , per definition , a priori and per se any scientific attempts to deal with consciousness as a non-physical process : see how the current majority of the mainstream scientific priesthood have been dealing with Sheldrake and co ,for example .


Sheldrake has received the treatment he has because he has offered no evidence for his theories; they are un-testable, unfalsifiable. So his work so far has been relegated to pseudoscience, just as Popper says a theory like that should be.

Comets are discovered by amateur astronomers, whose equipment is not as big and fancy as research institution's. They may also lack advanced degrees or published papers. But their findings are taken seriously. Why? Because when other astronomers look, they can see the same thing.

Regardless of what a priori assumptions you think exist in the minds of scientists, if the evidence is there, people pay attention.

I am not ,once again, such a fan of Sheldrake's morphic resonance theory , but it is a falsifiable theory though , relatively speaking ....

He has been testing it empirically ,in many ways ,and even via tv tests ...all around the world .... you just happen not to be watching haha .

Anyway , fact is , any scientific attempts to try to go beyond the mainstream "all is matter , including the mind " materialist false "scientific world view " are , per definition, a-priori and per -se automatically branded as pseudo-science or worse , no matter how much evidence or lack of it they might deliver .

Plus , despite the overwhelming evidence for the fact that materialism is false , and hence the current "scientific world view " is also false as a result ,despite all that , like the ones which seem to  have been delivered by Chalmers and by many others , despite all that , mainstream science continues to ignore them all , as if they do not exist ...

What does that tell you then , my pretty charming lady ?

Nice weekend by the way .

Have fun,and do not forget to try to test your own consciousness empirically ,to see whether your own consciousness is in your own brain or not , while you are at it ,somehow haha ,kidding  .

Thanks, appreciate indeed .

Take care .
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1019 on: 30/11/2013 20:53:58 »
Guys :

See here below "The conscious mind ..." By David J.Chalmers , especially the comments there below :

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/144960.The_Conscious_Mind

Which comment(s) in particular?

Again,  since you've read it, what is the empirical evidence for his theory about how consciousness works? How does he propose to test his newer ideas?

The only thing I saw in the comments that might be close to an answer to that question is:

"He goes onto argue that we ought to search for basic psycho-physical laws which would naturally govern how and when phenomenal experience arises and its structure. He argues that the structure of consciousness mirrors or is invariant with awareness, awareness being a psychology property describing how information is retrievable by the system. Chalmers ends the book on a speculative note exploring how information might give rise to elementary kinds of consciousness, wherever information might be found and goes onto apply his insights into arguing for the possibility of strong AI"

Which is interesting, but something you strongly argued against in your discussions with David Cooper.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1020 on: 30/11/2013 21:11:55 »
Guys :

See here below "The conscious mind ..." By David J.Chalmers , especially the comments there below :

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/144960.The_Conscious_Mind

Which comment(s) in particular?

Again,  since you've read it, what is the empirical evidence for his theory about how consciousness works? How does he propose to test his newer ideas?

The only thing I saw in the comments that might be close to an answer to that question is:

"He goes onto argue that we ought to search for basic psycho-physical laws which would naturally govern how and when phenomenal experience arises and its structure. He argues that the structure of consciousness mirrors or is invariant with awareness, awareness being a psychology property describing how information is retrievable by the system. Chalmers ends the book on a speculative note exploring how information might give rise to elementary kinds of consciousness, wherever information might be found and goes onto apply his insights into arguing for the possibility of strong AI"

Which is interesting, but something you strongly argued against in your discussions with David Cooper.
[/quote]

I am interested only in his refutation of materialism : see the comments of people in that link regarding that book ,the latter i haven't read yet , even though the introduction pretty tells the story of the book : a non-reductionist naturalist attempt to explain consciousness ...

You did miss my statement here above , saying that even the non-reductionist naturalist conception of nature is also ...false .


See ya later , alligator .
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1021 on: 30/11/2013 21:44:37 »
I am interested only in his refutation of materialism...  regarding that book ,the latter i haven't read yet...
Says it all really.
 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1022 on: 30/11/2013 23:27:01 »
Why have you still not answered my question?
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1023 on: 01/12/2013 02:16:50 »


I haven't read it yet , i have read just the introduction which is displayed here above , as you can see : it was recommended to me by some friends on the field .

The introduction pretty summarizes up the content of the book : pretty demolishing for materialism,and that by an ex-materialist such as Chalmers  .


Oh, well, that settles it then. Thanks so much.

Did I mention I'm writing a book as well? Here's the introduction:

"In chapter one, I present a solution the Riemann Hypothesis in mathematics and solve the P vs NP problem. Then in chapter two,  I show how to detect gravity waves (itís easier than you think!) Moving on to chemistry, I explain why some enzymes exhibit faster than diffusion kinetics. Chapter four  provides a quick and easy translation of the previously undeciphered  language of Rongorongo, and in Chapter five I predict the stock market returns for the next ten years. Chapter six explains the cause of Fibromyalgia (turns out it really is caused by garden gnomes Ė who knew?) and in chapter seven, I  disclose the location of Jimmy Hoffaís remains, as well as all of the socks that go missing in the laundry and the unmatched lids to plastic containers. Finally, in chapter eight, I balance the budgets of several nations in a fair and equitable way, and solve world hunger."

If you donít have time to read my book, donít worry,  itís all pretty much right there in the introduction.
« Last Edit: 01/12/2013 03:15:33 by cheryl j »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1024 on: 01/12/2013 08:06:06 »
Does Chalmers provide a single, unequivocal, testable definition of consciousness? If not, the book is a waste of paper, and of the reader's time.

On the other hand I'm looking forward to reading Cheryl's magnum opus - or at least the bit about missing socks. I've solved all the other problems, but can't reveal the solutions because it would upset the world zionist conspiracy in the Vatican.
« Last Edit: 01/12/2013 08:12:16 by alancalverd »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1024 on: 01/12/2013 08:06:06 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length