The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?  (Read 309666 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 #1150 on: 05/12/2013 19:30:12 »
You really haven't grasped the concept of 'discussion forum', have you?

It would take too much time to talk about those subjects , so .
Don't be lazy , try to...

Do you ever listen yourself and hear what you are saying?
It's ironic, given that we've been talking about self-awareness... :o
 

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 #1151 on: 05/12/2013 19:53:53 »
... especially regarding how quantum mechanics have been superseding materialism as to deliver some highly fascinating insights in relation to the fundamental causal effect of the mind or consciousness on matter ...
Quantum mechanics says nothing about the causal effect of the mind or consciousness on matter. Some ill-informed people have mistaken the 'observer' that makes an 'observation' (or 'measurement') and so 'collapses the wave function', for a conscious entity.

It is, however, just the anthropomorphised protagonist (in this context, a particle or wavicle) of a quantum interaction (the observation or measurement) that results in the decoherence (apparent collapse of wave function) of the system.

In other words, any particle interaction that decoheres a quantum superposition can be seen as an observation or measurement, by an observer, that collapses the wave function (which is a mathematical description, not a physical one). A conscious entity may become aware of it, or not; it happens regardless.

Here's a video expressing a quantum physicist's frustration with this widespread misunderstanding: Quantum Physics Woo. The newspaper article it refers to is QM & the Afterlife.

This is an even worse misunderstanding than the one which conflates the Observer Effect (measuring a system disturbs it) and the Uncertainty Principle (the limit to the accuracy with which certain complementary properties can be simultaneously measured).
« Last Edit: 05/12/2013 20:00:54 by dlorde »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1152 on: 05/12/2013 20:18:51 »
All Don Q has demonstrated so far is that philosophers don't understand science.

Nothing new there. I've heard umpteen philosophers drone on for hours about how quantum mechanics or relativity was a body blow for the establishment, from which the world of science never recovered, etc.... and each time, a scientist in the audience said "no, it just explained stuff that we couldn't explain before, and as long as it (a) didn't have any discontinuity with the mesoscopic universe and (b) predicted something different from the previous model, which turned out to be true, it was accepted as a better model".

So as far as quantum physics is concerned, we now use a probabilistic model which accords better with experiment than one based on billiard balls and waves. It's still utterly materialistic - no ghost in the machine, just rather more subtle mathematics than classical physics.

Still, if anyone wants to read a modern philosopher's take on dualism, try Gilbert Ryle. Better still, get a life.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1153 on: 05/12/2013 21:26:30 »
... especially regarding how quantum mechanics have been superseding materialism as to deliver some highly fascinating insights in relation to the fundamental causal effect of the mind or consciousness on matter ...
Quantum mechanics says nothing about the causal effect of the mind or consciousness on matter. Some ill-informed people have mistaken the 'observer' that makes an 'observation' (or 'measurement') and so 'collapses the wave function', for a conscious entity.

It is, however, just the anthropomorphised protagonist (in this context, a particle or wavicle) of a quantum interaction (the observation or measurement) that results in the decoherence (apparent collapse of wave function) of the system.

In other words, any particle interaction that decoheres a quantum superposition can be seen as an observation or measurement, by an observer, that collapses the wave function (which is a mathematical description, not a physical one). A conscious entity may become aware of it, or not; it happens regardless.

Here's a video expressing a quantum physicist's frustration with this widespread misunderstanding: Quantum Physics Woo. The newspaper article it refers to is QM & the Afterlife.

This is an even worse misunderstanding than the one which conflates the Observer Effect (measuring a system disturbs it) and the Uncertainty Principle (the limit to the accuracy with which certain complementary properties can be simultaneously measured).

( Do you remember when you used to say that the materialist "the mind is in the brain " extension of the materialist false conception of nature , was in accordance with  the scientific available data to date ? You still do,to mention just that  : how can you be taken seriously then ? )

Oh, come on : should i believe you or Sheldrake, and many  scientists quantum physicists and scientists nobel prize winners ?
You're not a quantum physicist and   you are just displaying the materialist view on the subject that does exclude , per definition, a-priori and per -se any causal mental effect on matter .
Even Popper did reject the latter materialist assumption + he also rejected that causation can happen only between likes,together with David Hume  : materialists do accept ,  per -definition, only physical causation = a materialist belief assumption , no empirical fact .
« Last Edit: 05/12/2013 21:28:57 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1154 on: 05/12/2013 21:35:07 »
All Don Q has demonstrated so far is that philosophers don't understand science.

Nothing new there. I've heard umpteen philosophers drone on for hours about how quantum mechanics or relativity was a body blow for the establishment, from which the world of science never recovered, etc.... and each time, a scientist in the audience said "no, it just explained stuff that we couldn't explain before, and as long as it (a) didn't have any discontinuity with the mesoscopic universe and (b) predicted something different from the previous model, which turned out to be true, it was accepted as a better model".

So as far as quantum physics is concerned, we now use a probabilistic model which accords better with experiment than one based on billiard balls and waves. It's still utterly materialistic - no ghost in the machine, just rather more subtle mathematics than classical physics.

Still, if anyone wants to read a modern philosopher's take on dualism, try Gilbert Ryle. Better still, get a life.

There was no philosopher talking in my latest excerpts ,just prominent scientists , 1 of them at least is a nobel prize winner , so, just try first to read them, before jumping , a-priori , to these kindda silly conclusions .
Materialism and hence the false materialist mainstream "scientific world view " do exclude, per definition, a-priori and per-se any non-physical or mental causal effect on matter , simply because they just believe that 'all is matter , including the mind "-= just a core materialist outdated and superseded 19th century belief assumption that was "built " like sand castles on the fundamentally incorrect classical physics = no empirical fact  .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1155 on: 05/12/2013 21:39:10 »
How can you deny the fundamental causal effect of the mental on matter , when you do experience just that everyday yourselves :
Your own minds do effect your own bodies and brain , every single day .

So, your "refutations " of the mental causal effect on matter is just a materialist belief assumption, no empirical fact , in the same sense "the mind is in the brain " is = they are all just extensions of the false materialist mainstream "all i matter , including the mind -scientific world view " = no empirical facts .
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1156 on: 05/12/2013 22:33:03 »


Oh, come on : should i believe you or Sheldrake, and many  scientists quantum physicists and scientists nobel prize winners ?


I think you need to rephrase your question if you are going to appeal to authority, ie "Who should I listen to you, or Sheldrake and Chris Carter's interpretation of modern physics?" And of course the answer is up to you.
« Last Edit: 06/12/2013 00:12:05 by cheryl j »
 

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 #1157 on: 05/12/2013 23:26:29 »
Oh, come on : should i believe you or Sheldrake, and many  scientists quantum physicists and scientists nobel prize winners ?
You may believe whomever you wish. I have explained why the interpretation of QM in your quotes is mistaken, and provided supplementary support for what I said; so now you have extra information to inform your choice of belief. As Dr. Johnson would say, "Sir, I have found you an explanation, but I am not obliged to find you an understanding".

The general idea is that people reading the forum can look at the arguments, and, if they're interested, discuss it further, find out more themselves, maybe learn something, and perhaps even change their minds one way or the other. I do realise that very few people will read the forum, and fewer will be interested enough to find out more, and probably none will change their minds about anything; but it's all good practice.

Quote
You're not a quantum physicist and you are just displaying the materialist view on the subject that does exclude , per definition, a-priori and per -se any causal mental effect on matter .
True, like yourself, I'm not a quantum physicist. Our arguments are what counts here, not our occupations.

The view I'm 'displaying' is the view that, as yet, all the evidence points to the mind being the result of physical brain processes. You seem unable to distinguish between that and a "materialist view on the subject that does exclude , per definition, a-priori and per -se any causal mental effect on matter". I can't help you with that; I can only refer you back to Dr. Johnson.

Quote
Even Popper did reject the latter materialist assumption + he also rejected that causation can happen only between likes,together with David Hume  : materialists do accept ,  per -definition, only physical causation = a materialist belief assumption , no empirical fact .
Neither Popper nor Hume were quantum physicists either, if that's relevant; if not, you'll have to explain in English what your point is here.
 

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 #1158 on: 05/12/2013 23:40:53 »
How can you deny the fundamental causal effect of the mental on matter , when you do experience just that everyday yourselves :
Your own minds do effect your own bodies and brain , every single day .
It does seem that way, but there is an increasing amount of evidence that the sense of conscious agency is retrospective. In other news, appearances can be deceptive and intuition is often a poor guide to reality. Who knew?
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8134
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1159 on: 06/12/2013 00:31:51 »
How can you deny the fundamental causal effect of the mental on matter ...

Because I can't telekinetically put the garbage bin out to the curb for collection, nor can anyone else.

Your own minds do effect your own bodies and brain , every single day .

Nervous system , (including autonomic) , and endocrine system are sufficient to explain how brain and body interact.
« Last Edit: 06/12/2013 01:25:02 by RD »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1160 on: 06/12/2013 17:48:55 »


Even Popper did reject the latter materialist assumption + he also rejected that causation can happen only between likes,together with David Hume  : materialists do accept ,  per -definition, only physical causation = a materialist belief assumption , no empirical fact .

Actually, the idea that only "like can cause like " seems to be a bigger tenet for you than anyone who attributes consciousness to emergent properties. You've said it over and over, that consciousness is "totally different" and can't be the result of brain states.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1161 on: 07/12/2013 15:39:35 »
the mental is more fundamental than matter


How do you know this? Do you believe that before there were humans to think about the universe, nothing existed or could exist?


Ironically enough , the most physical science of them all , modern physics or quantum mechanics , have been superseding materialism , to the point where they can raise the issue of the fundamental form of causation of them all : that of the mental causal effect on matter :

See this fascinating summary on the subject :


The von Neumann/Wigner interpretation of quantum physics, supported now by the experiments of Schmidt and others, may bring to mind the idealism of Bishop Berkeley, who thought that ordinaryobjects, such as trees and furniture, did not exist unless observed.
But this interpretation does not deny that an external reality exists independent of anyone observing it.
Properties of quantum phenomena are divided into static and dynamic properties, with the former, such as mass and charge, having definite and constant values for any observation.
 It is the dynamic properties, those that do not have constant values— such as position, momentum, and direction of spin—that are thought to exist as
potentialities that become actualities only when observed.
But as quantum theorist Euan Squires points out, this raises a very strange question:
The assumption we are considering appears even more weird when we realize that throughout much of the universe, and indeed throughout all of it in early times, there were presumably no conscious observers. . . .
Even worse are the problems we meet if we accept the modern ideas on the early universe in which quantum decays (of the ‘vacuum,’ but this need not trouble us here) were necessary in order to obtain the conditions in which conscious observers could exist.

Who, or what, did the observations necessary to create the observers?
Squires enters the realm of theology with great trepidation and considers what seems to be the only possibility under this interpretation: that conscious observations can be made by minds outside of the physical universe.

This, of course, is one of the traditional roles of God, or of the gods.
Whether expressed in theological terms or not, the suggestion that conscious minds are in some way connected and that they might even be connected to a form of universal, collective consciousness appears to be a possible solution to the problem of quantum theory.
It is not easy to see what it might mean, as we understand so little about consciousness.
 That there are“ connections” of some sort between conscious minds and physical matter is surely implied by the fact that conscious decisions have effects on matter.

 Thus there are links between conscious minds that go through the medium of physical systems.

Whether there are others, that exploit the nonphysical and presumably nonlocalised nature of consciousness, it is not possible to say.
Some people might wish to mention here the “evidence” for telepathy and similar extra-sensory effects.

Professor Squires concludes his discussion on the role of consciousness in physics with this remark:
It is remarkable that such ideas should arise from a study of the behavior of the most elementary of systems.
 That such systems point to a world beyond themselves is a fact that will be loved by all who believe that there are truths of which we know little,
that there are mysteries seen only by mystics, and that there are phenomena inexplicable within our normal view of what is
possible.
 There is no harm in this—physics indeed points to the unknown.
 The emphasis, however, must be on the unknown,
on the mystery, on the truths dimly glimpsed, on things inexpressible except in the language of poetry, or religion, or
metaphor.


Chris Carter .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1162 on: 07/12/2013 15:41:54 »
Objections of Daniel Dennett :




Daniel Dennett’s book Consciousness Explained has a chapter titled “Why Dualism is Forlorn,” which
begins with the following words: “The idea of mind as distinct from the brain, composed not of
ordinary matter but of some other kind of stuff, is dualism, and it is deservedly in disrepute today… .
The prevailing wisdom, variously expressed and argued for is materialism: there is one sort of stuff,
namely matter—the physical stuff of physics, chemistry, and physiology—and the mind is somehow
nothing but a physical phenomenon. In short, the mind is the brain.”49
Dennett then asks, “What, then, is so wrong with dualism? Why is it in such disfavor?” His answer:
A fundamental principle of physics is that any change in the trajectory of a particle is an
acceleration requiring the expenditure of energy … this principle of conservation of energy … is
apparently violated by dualism. This confrontation between standard physics and dualism has
been endlessly discussed since Descartes’s own day, and is widely regarded as the inescapable
flaw in dualism.50
Shortly after this, he writes: “This fundamentally antiscientific stance of dualism is, to my mind, it
most disqualifying feature, and is the reason why in this book I adopt the apparently dogmatic rule
that dualism is to be avoided at all costs.”51
Commenting on the argument Dennett presents, Stapp writes,
The argument depends on identifying ‘standard physics’ with classical physics. The argument
collapses when one goes over to contemporary physics, in which trajectories of particles are
replaced by cloud-like structures, and in which conscious choices can influence physically
described activity without violating the conservation laws or any other laws of quantum
mechanics. Contemporary physical theory allows, and its orthodox von Neumann form entails, an
interactive dualism that is fully in accord with all the laws of physics.52 (emphasis in original)
Rosenblum and Kuttner also reject Dennett’s arguments:
Some theorists deny the possibility of duality by arguing that a signal from a non-material mind
could not carry energy and thus could not influence material brain cells. Because of this inability
of a mind to supply energy to influence the neurons of the brain, it is claimed that physics
demonstrates an inescapable flaw of dualism. However, no energy need be involved in
determining to which particular situation a wave function collapses. Thus the determination of
which of the physically possible conscious experiences becomes the actual experience is a
process that need not involve energy transfer. Quantum mechanics therefore allows an escape
from the supposed fatal flaw of dualism. It is a mistake to think that dualism can be ruled out on
the basis of physics.53
Finally, as Broad pointed out decades ago, at a time when quantum mechanics was still in its
infancy, even if all physical-to-physical causation involves transfer of energy, we have no reason to
think that such transfer would also be required in mental-to-physical or physical-to-mental
causation.54 This, of course, is completely consistent with the point made above by Rosenblum and
Kuttner.*33
.......................................................................................
......................................................................................
...........................................................................................
CONCLUDING REMARKS :

Cognitive scientist Roger Sperry has proposed that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.
A simple example of an emergent property is the fluidity of water, which is nothing like any property
of hydrogen and oxygen. Another example is the geometrical and optical properties of crystals,
properties that the molecules that compose them do not possess. Sperry proposes that consciousness
emerges from the configuration of the brain in the way that fluidity emerges from combining
hydrogen and oxygen.
This is different from the materialist production theory, according to which the brain produces
consciousness the way the liver produces bile. It is a temporal distinction: in the production theory,
brain states precede the conscious states they produce, but if conscious states are emergent properties
of brain states, then they occur simultaneously with them.
However, as philosopher of mind B. Alan Wallace notes,
A genuine emergent property of the cells of the brain is the brain’s semi-solid consistency, and
that is something that objective, physical science can well comprehend … but they do not
understand how the brain produces any state of consciousness. In other words, if mental
phenomena are in fact nothing more than emergent properties and functions of the brain, their
relation to the brain is fundamentally unlike every other emergent property and function found in
nature.55 (emphasis in original)
The von Neumann interpretation of reality leaves open the possibility that the mind is not an
emergent but rather an elemental property, that is, a basic constituent of the universe as elemental as
energy and force fields. This idea is seriously entertained by physicists such as Herbert, and in its
favor we should note that it would resolve the paradox that is raised by the von Neumann
interpretation: if consciousness depends on the physical world and if the value of many quantum
physical properties depends on consciousness, then how did the physical world ever bring about
consciousness in the first place? The solution to this puzzle is apparently what Jeans means when he
writes, “Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter; we ought rather
hail it as the governor of the realm of matter.”56 *34
Quantum mechanics can thereby be considered as supporting an interactive dualism similar to that
of Descartes. Cartesian dualism holds that there are two kinds of entirely separate substances: mind
and matter. This theory fell into disrepute among many philosophers because classical physics
provided no mechanism by which mind could influence material substance.
The classical idea of substance—self-sufficient, unchanging, with definite location, motion, and
extension in space—has been replaced by the idea that physical reality is not made out of any material
substance, but rather out of events and possibilities for those events to occur. These possibilities, or
potentials, for events to occur have a wavelike structure and can interfere with each other. They are
not substance-like, that is, static or persisting in time. Rather than being concerned with “substances”
in the classical sense of the term, modern interactive dualism conceives of two differently described
aspects of reality: the psychical and the physical.
Stapp sums up how a modern interactive dualism based on quantum mechanics simplifies the
conceptual relationship between the two aspects of reality.
This solution is in line with Descartes’ idea of two “substances,” that can interact in our brains,
provided “substance” means merely a carrier of “essences.” The essence of the inhabitants of res
cogitans is “felt experience.” They are thoughts, ideas, and feelings: the realities that hang
together to form our streams of conscious experiences. But the essence of the inhabitants of res
extensa is not at all that sort of persisting stuff that classical physicists imagined the physical
world to be made of … their essential nature is that of “potentialities for the psychophysical
events to occur.” Those events occur at the interface between the psychologically described and
physically described aspects of nature. The causal connections between “potentialities for
psychologically described events to occur” and the actual occurrence of such events are easier to
comprehend and describe than causal connections between the mental and physical features of
classical physics. For, both sides of the quantum duality are conceptually more like “ideas” than
like “rocks.”57

Chris Carter
« Last Edit: 07/12/2013 15:44:11 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1163 on: 07/12/2013 15:45:20 »
A NEW CONCEPTION OF MATTER:


One of the most striking differences between classical physics and quantum mechanics is the changed
conception of matter. Atoms are no longer thought of as tiny billiard balls that have definite
properties, regardless of whether they are observed. Physicist Werner Heisenberg expressed it this
way:
Atoms are not things. The electrons which form an atom’s shells are no longer things in the sense
of classical physics, things which could be unambiguously described by concepts like location,
velocity, energy, size. When we get down to the atomic level, the objective world in space and
time no longer exists, and the mathematical symbols of theoretical physics refer merely to
possibilities, not to facts.18
Atoms are no longer thought of as “solid, massy, hard, impenetrable moveable particles,” as
Newton described them, but rather as potentialities, possibilities with a wavelike structure that can
interfere like waves. Their dynamic properties are intrinsically linked to the mental. Possibilities that
become fully real only when observed are more like ideas than like tiny, observer-independent billiard
balls. Quantum theorist Henry Stapp has remarked on how the purely physical aspects of reality are no
longer thought of as having the qualities assigned to rocks by classical physics: “In quantum theory
the purely physically described aspects are mere potentialities for real events to occur. A potentiality
is more like an idea than a persisting material substance, and is treated in the theory as ‘an idea of
what might happen.’”19
This new conception of matter, along with nonmechanical causation, is what physicist James Jeans
was referring to when he wrote that “the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a
machine.”20

Chris Carter
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1164 on: 07/12/2013 15:50:10 »
Why do you think science itself did come from the very womb of a particluar religion, in order to study nature and the universe , empirically?


I think both religion and science are attempts by an intelligent brain to answer "Why do things happen? Why are things the way they are?" But I don't believe religion was or is necessary for science, nor do I agree that any religion can take credit for scientific knowledge. I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion.

That's just a materialistic belief assumption extension of the  materialist "all is matter , including the mind " mainstream false "scientific world view " : irrelevant .


The conflict between science and religion has been just an Eurocentric problem , not universal ,not in the absolute sense at least .

There is no conflict between my faith and proper science without materialism, and there can be none  :
They complete each other , they are necessary to each other , they are the both sides of the same coin.

There doesn't have to be a conflict between any religion and science. One question religion asks that science doesn't, is what is should we do? What's morally right? Some branches of ethical philosophy raise this question, but moral principles can't be derived from physical facts. Perhaps that is one reason Ethos does not see a conflict between his faith and science, although I don't wish to put words in his mouth.



Religion is not only about moral or ethical values ,religion is much more than just that , mine at least in this case that's all encompassing : material and spiritual : it tries to explain the universe ,how did it came into being , how it will end ....and the role of humanity in that all ...

Science tries also to explain the parts of reality it can deal with empirically and piecemeal , while religion is holistic and thus leaves room for human inquiry , reason , true science ...

Those early muslim pioneers behind the birth and practice of science used to consider science as a religious duty, a form of worship of God , while separating their faith from science in the process , in order to find out about the secrets and signs of God within and without empirically .

Since science has been materialistic , in the sense that science has been assuming that "all is matter,including the mind ", then there cannot  but be a serious conflict between religion and science: religion is incompatible in fact with materialistic science in the above mentioned sense  ,since the false materialist "all is matter ,including the mind " mainstream 'scientific world view " has been, per definition, excluding any notion or existence of the immaterial, and hence that of God , logically .
The immaterial that has been reduced to the material, thanks to materialism in science .

At the other hand  ,there should be in fact no conflict between the metaphysically neutral science proper and true religion , when science will be free from materialism or from any other false conception of nature .

But fact is , the conflict between science and religion has been just  an Eurocentric one , not universal, not in the absolute sense at least :

The medieval church used to consider Aristotle's physics , for example , as an act of faith , thanks to the works of Thomas Aquinas ,an act of faith that should not be challenged , that's why Bruno who raised the Copernican counter-arguments was burned at the stake , and Galileo was smart enough to recant 16 years later when he captured the attention of the terrible inquisition .....

Quote
But the "conflict" only seems to arise when people try to prove religious beliefs scientifically, or derive moral beliefs from physical facts.

Once again, since science has been materialistic , since the 19th century at least , there can be therefore only conflict between religion and the materialistic science .

Quote
Your assertion that materialism is a degenerate form of Christianity has no basis logically or historically, and I don't see how any particular religion "gave birth to" any area of science, even if some early scientists were also theists, or had the time and literacy skills to pursue science because of their religious occupation
.

Some do trace back the roots of materialism all the way back to Democritus 5 centuries BC when he used to say this famous line of his " Nothing exists but atoms, and the void " .
Some others trace back the origins of materialism to much older civilizations : materialism is in fact a primitive world view that 'resurrected " as a result of the medieval Eurocentric terrible religious wars , religious inquisitions, intolerance ....and saw its chance materialized in Newton's classical physics to establish its "scientific " claims .

But, Newton's physics have been fundamentally incorrect , and hence the materialism that was built on it is false as a result .

Since materialism reduces everything to just matter , it cannot but be a lower or a degenerate form of christianity .

P.S.: It is almost an undeniable fact that the scientific method did originate from the very epistemology of a particular holy book : see the arguments in that regard presented in the origin of science thread .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1165 on: 07/12/2013 15:57:47 »
How can you deny the fundamental causal effect of the mental on matter ...

Because I can't telekinetically put the garbage bin out to the curb for collection, nor can anyone else.

You know what i was talking about :
Your own mind does have  causal effects on both your physical brain and body : you cannot deny that fact ,can you ?

Quote
Your own minds do effect your own bodies and brain , every single day .

Nervous system , (including autonomic) , and endocrine system are sufficient to explain how brain and body interact.

Bullshit ,sorry : that's just the materialist computational or functionalist model that cannot account for consciousness as such= just a materialist desperate attempt to "explain " consciousness neuro-physiologically ,by reducing consciousness to just that , consciousness that's irreducible to thye physical  .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1166 on: 07/12/2013 16:20:30 »


Oh, come on : should i believe you or Sheldrake, and many  scientists quantum physicists and scientists nobel prize winners ?


I think you need to rephrase your question if you are going to appeal to authority, ie "Who should I listen to you, or Sheldrake and Chris Carter's interpretation of modern physics?" And of course the answer is up to you.

I think that you should read that specific post addressed to you , by the way , i did repost here above :
Those were the views of some quantum physicists and other scientists on the subject , that seem to me more qualified on the subject than our dlorde   here , the latter that just offers me materialist stuff , instead of empirical facts = he cannot but continue confusing between the 2 , as you all do by the way,especially our RD and dlorde . .

Materialism excludes , per definition, a-priori and per-se any mental causal effect on matter or on body and brain= that's a materialist act of faith , no empirical fact  .

So, if you wanna talk about any "refutation " of any  mental causal effect on matter , try to deliver some empirical evidence ,as my excerpts did , you cannot just assume that materialist extensions of the false materialist conception of nature are 'emprical evidence " = stop confusing between the 2 thus .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1167 on: 07/12/2013 16:29:10 »


Even Popper did reject the latter materialist assumption + he also rejected that causation can happen only between likes,together with David Hume  : materialists do accept ,  per -definition, only physical causation = a materialist belief assumption , no empirical fact .

Actually, the idea that only "like can cause like " seems to be a bigger tenet for you than anyone who attributes consciousness to emergent properties. You've said it over and over, that consciousness is "totally different" and can't be the result of brain states.

What i meant is as follows :

Materialists do exclude ,per definition, a-priori and per-se thus any mental causal effect on matter : they just think that consciousness is an 'emergent " property form the evolved complexity of the brain = consciousness is just a biological process , a useless by-product of evolution that is caused by the physical brain , but consciousness in that materialist sense at least thus does not have any causal effect on matter , body or physical brain .

While we all in fact do experience the mental causal effect on body and physical brain, every single conscious moment of our everyday lives .

The mental that's irreducible to the physical in fact .

The physical brain does affect the non-physical mental , but does not cause it : it is the mental that does affect the physical brain and  body causally : how ,either way ? : that remains a mystery .


In short :

Any  approach of consciousness remains confined to its own  corresponding metaphysical world view or frameworks of understanding through which any attempt to "explain " consciousness is conducted : either  via the materialist reductionist naturalist conception of nature , via the non-reductionist naturalist one , or via all forms of dualism , mentalism, idealism ....=  science proper has not yet anything whatsoever  to do with all those metaphysical approaches of consciousness  .

« Last Edit: 07/12/2013 16:42:01 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1168 on: 07/12/2013 17:05:33 »
How can you deny the fundamental causal effect of the mental on matter , when you do experience just that everyday yourselves :
Your own minds do effect your own bodies and brain , every single day .
It does seem that way, but there is an increasing amount of evidence that the sense of conscious agency is retrospective. In other news, appearances can be deceptive and intuition is often a poor guide to reality. Who knew?

When you say "evidence ", i cannot but interpret it as materialist belief assumptions ,you do keep confusing with empirical evidence , as you have been showing all along .

Dennett did ,ironically enough , raised the same false exit-strategy intuition issue ,when he was confronted with John Searl 's solid logical refutation of Dennett 's 'consciousness explained "  :
Searl's answer was like the following :
The appearance of consciousness is the reality of consciousness ,we all do experience as such: that's not a matter of intuition thus  .

The sunset ,for example, is an apperance or illusion that does not correspond to reality , but the appearance of conscious experience is a fact or a reality shared by all conscious humans .

Searl's "The mystery of consciousness " is an interesting book to read on the subject , where Searl delivered his sharp critique in relation to that above mentioned Dennett's book , where the latter denies the existence of consciousness as such , to Chalmers' "The conscious mind " property dualism  ...and to  other books ...

Searl that cannot but also be confined to his own metaphysical approach of consciousness , by rejecting materialist computational reductionism , materialist behaviorism, materialist functionalism ,Chalmers' property dualism ,and substance dualism also ...

Searl's secular approach sounds like the following :
Consciousness is so real , that it cannot be but caused by the brain as to be qualitatively different from the latter : his chinese room argument does refute the so-called Strong artificial intelligence approach on the subject , in the sense that a computer program  operated by any given operator who happens not to know chinese   , cannot fool the native chinese ,simply because the syntax of the program cannot account for the conscious content meaning or semantics chinese real people would expect to hear from real people talking chinese .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1169 on: 07/12/2013 17:31:26 »
Oh, come on : should i believe you or Sheldrake, and many  scientists quantum physicists and scientists nobel prize winners ?
You may believe whomever you wish. I have explained why the interpretation of QM in your quotes is mistaken, and provided supplementary support for what I said; so now you have extra information to inform your choice of belief. As Dr. Johnson would say, "Sir, I have found you an explanation, but I am not obliged to find you an understanding".

What you fail to see so far (That's a repeated stubborn pattern of yours i cannot blame you for in fact , since you are just yet another victim of materialism in science , materialism that has been taken for granted as science ,for so long now ,or as "the scientific world view " ), what you fail to see thus  is that the above was no 'explanation or emprical evidence ", just materialist belief assumptions , since  the materialist false mainstream "all is matter ,including the mind -scientific world view " does ,per definition, a-priori and per-se exclude any mental causal effect on matter or on body and brain , not to mention that it excludes the fact that the mental is irreducible to the physical .
Quote
The general idea is that people reading the forum can look at the arguments, and, if they're interested, discuss it further, find out more themselves, maybe learn something, and perhaps even change their minds one way or the other. I do realise that very few people will read the forum, and fewer will be interested enough to find out more, and probably none will change their minds about anything; but it's all good practice.

Indeed : amazing how a-priori held belief metaphysical assumptions ,or conceptions of nature , do take the upperhand above emprical evidence .

The same goes for you also ,simply because you cannot but be confined to your own materialist reductionist false approach of consciousness and the rest .

In short :
Any approach of consciousness out there gets conducted within its corresponding metaphysical world view and frameworks of understanding = science proper has nothing so far to do with any approach of consciousness out there = no approach of consciousness so far , either the materialist reductionist naturalist computational behaviorist  functionalist ones , or the naturalist non-reductionist  property dualist one , nor  any idealist , mentalist or substance dualist approach of consciousness can be falsifiable as to deserve to be raised to the scientific status .

So, don't be self-deceptive as to believe that any of your materialist reductionist approaches of consciousness are falsifiable = scientific : they are not .


Quote
Quote
You're not a quantum physicist and you are just displaying the materialist view on the subject that does exclude , per definition, a-priori and per -se any causal mental effect on matter .
True, like yourself, I'm not a quantum physicist. Our arguments are what counts here, not our occupations.

Arguments of qualified scientists do have more weigth , those of relatively objective qualified scientists on the subject do,at least .

Quote
The view I'm 'displaying' is the view that, as yet, all the evidence points to the mind being the result of physical brain processes. You seem unable to distinguish between that and a "materialist view on the subject that does exclude , per definition, a-priori and per -se any causal mental effect on matter". I can't help you with that; I can only refer you back to Dr. Johnson.

Since materialism is false , i cannot but reject all its views , logically,including "the mind is in the brain, memory is stored in the brain, nature and life are mechanical  ...."  .
Your alleged 'empirical evidence " has been turning out to be just materialist belief assumptions all along,  or just extensions of the false materialist conception of nature in science .

Quote
Quote
Even Popper did reject the latter materialist assumption + he also rejected that causation can happen only between likes,together with David Hume  : materialists do accept ,  per -definition, only physical causation = a materialist belief assumption , no empirical fact .
Neither Popper nor Hume were quantum physicists either, if that's relevant; if not, you'll have to explain in English what your point is here.


I did say specifically what Popper and Hume rejected = induction and the materialist assumption that only likes can act upon likes or cause likes ,and therefore the materialist intrinsic rejection of the mental causal effect on matter holds no logical water  either  .Popper did also reject the latter materialist belief assumption thus .
Popper and Hume were qualified enough to hold such logical views .

« Last Edit: 07/12/2013 17:36:56 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1170 on: 07/12/2013 17:49:00 »
Any given approach of consciousness out there ,all of them, without any exception,  is so far just a matter of its corresponding underlying metaphysical world view = unfalsifiable = unscientific .

The nature ,function or origins of consciousness remain just a question of belief so far : science proper has not been able yet to find a way to deal empirically with the subjective nature of consciousness,let alone with its subjective content, experience , states ,  or qualia  ......let alone with the nature of our human  love,  desires , fears , feelings , emotions , ambitions, imagination, creativity , easthetics ....
I do not see so far how science can do just that .

John Searl, for example, says that science can indeed ,since  neurology , medical science , psychology ....can deal  empirically with the disorders ,injuries, diseases , heritable illnesses , ....behind our feelings of pain , pathology , psychological disorders , via surgery , medicines , therapy , respectively .

But the nature of the subjective conscious feeling of pain ,for example, that's mainly mental  .....remains beyond science so far .
« Last Edit: 07/12/2013 17:55:34 by DonQuichotte »
 

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 #1171 on: 07/12/2013 17:59:55 »
When you say "evidence ", i cannot but interpret it as materialist belief assumptions ,you do keep confusing with empirical evidence , as you have been showing all along .
The evidence is empirical, and indicates that conscious awareness of voluntary action is retrospective. This was discovered about 30 years ago by Benjamin Libet, and has since been demonstrated repeatedly by more robust experiments (e.g. Hughes, Simard, Vankov & Pineda). The arrival of fMRI has permitted more detailed exploration of this phenomenon. Brain activity related to particular voluntary actions is detectable up to 6 seconds before the individual is consciously aware of deciding to act, and when distinguishable choices are involved, it is possible to use this activity to predict the choice before the individual is consciously aware of making it.

Useful summaries are in Awareness of Intention (the 'Sense of Agency' section is particularly interesting) and chapter 5 of 'Free Will and Responsibility' (scroll down - it's the first viewable chapter).

That is the empirical evidence; interpret it how you wish.
« Last Edit: 07/12/2013 18:08:59 by dlorde »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1172 on: 07/12/2013 18:31:04 »
When you say "evidence ", i cannot but interpret it as materialist belief assumptions ,you do keep confusing with empirical evidence , as you have been showing all along .
The evidence is empirical, and indicates that conscious awareness of voluntary action is retrospective. This was discovered about 30 years ago by Benjamin Libet, and has since been demonstrated repeatedly by more robust experiments (e.g. Hughes, Simard, Vankov & Pineda). The arrival of fMRI has permitted more detailed exploration of this phenomenon. Brain activity related to particular voluntary actions is detectable up to 6 seconds before the individual is consciously aware of deciding to act, and when distinguishable choices are involved, it is possible to use this activity to predict the choice before the individual is consciously aware of making it.

Useful summaries are in Awareness of Intention (the 'Sense of Agency' section is particularly interesting) and chapter 5 of 'Free Will and Responsibility' (scroll down - it's the first viewable chapter).

That is the empirical evidence; interpret it how you wish.

You do confirm my previous allegations :

Those experiments can only be misinterpreted materialistically , since "all is matter , including the mind ", since "the mind is in the brain , or the mind is just the product of the physical brain's activity " .
Non-materialists might interpret those experiments totally  differently , as they do actually .

Since "the mind is caused by the brain ", then, there can be , logically , no existence of such notion such as the free will .

But , when one would look at  the mind-body interaction or relationship from a totally different angle or perspective , like from the non-physical nature of the mental point of view , then, free will does exist in that context at least , since the mental that's irreducible to the physical has indeed causal effect of matter ,including the physical brain and body .
« Last Edit: 07/12/2013 18:36:42 by DonQuichotte »
 

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 #1173 on: 07/12/2013 18:37:46 »
Non-materialists might interpret those experiments totally  differently , as they do actually .
I'm interested to hear any interpretations - how do non-materialists interpret these observations?

Quote
Since "the mind is caused by the brain ", then, there can be , logically , no existence of such notion such as the free will .
It depends on precisely what you mean by free will. I think there's a reasonable definition of free will that fits that model.
« Last Edit: 07/12/2013 18:47:00 by dlorde »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1174 on: 07/12/2013 18:45:10 »
Talking about basing "empirical evidence " , or rather basing misinterpretations of scientific experiments on false a-priori held materialistic belief assumptions,regarding the mind -body relationship : how convenient .
Belief assumptions, theories of nature or any given theories for that matter should be first tested empirically , as to determin whether they are falsifiable or not ,as to deserve getting raised or not to the scientific status, not the other way around .

Are  the materialistic "all is matter ,including the mind " belief assumptions + their  extensions such as "the mind is in the brain, the mind is caused by the brain " ...are they faslifiable ? Obviously ...not .

 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1174 on: 07/12/2013 18:45:10 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums